The Intermittent Mind
The Intermittent Mind
Food for Thought on Intelligence, Contingency, and an Indifferent Universe
Vickacy K. Williams
Independent Researcher | Guyana
— ✦ —
Here is a thought that should keep you up at night — not with dread, but with the particular vertigo of genuine wonder.
Somewhere in the Milky Way, perhaps tens of thousands of light-years from where you are sitting, a star is burning. Around it, perhaps, a planet orbits in an environment where liquid water can persist. On that planet, if conditions permitted, chemistry became biology. Biology became complexity. Complexity became, eventually, something that could look up at the sky and ask questions about itself. That something was not inevitable. It was not the goal. It was not even necessarily the most probable outcome. It was one outcome among an almost unimaginable number of possibilities. And it was a recent one.
I. The Universe Does Not Care About Intelligence
We have a tendency, deeply human and therefore deeply suspect, to read the history of the universe as a story with a protagonist. First there was hydrogen. Then stars. Then planets. Then life. Then us. The narrative feels purposeful, like each chapter was building toward something. It wasn’t.
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. Human technological intelligence, by comparison, is extraordinarily recent. The conditions for complex chemistry had to wait for earlier generations of stars to produce and distribute heavier elements. Planets had to form. Stable environments had to persist. Chemistry had to become sufficiently organised for life to emerge.
We do not know exactly how that happened. But we know what happened next.
Evolution was not building toward intelligence either. It was building toward nothing. Natural selection is not a plan. It is a filter: what survives, survives; what doesn’t, doesn’t. For billions of years, the most successful organisms on Earth were not thinking about the universe.
They were reproducing.
Bacteria. Archaea. Quietly, unspectacularly, chemically competent organisms that needed no brains, produced no language, built no civilisations and yet dominated the planet utterly — and still do. If evolutionary success is measured by persistence, abundance and ecological dominance, bacteria have rather embarrassingly outperformed us.
Intelligence, in this context, is not the summit of a ladder. It is one branch on an impossibly dense tree — a branch that appeared very recently, in one lineage, under a specific set of conditions that happened to remain favourable for an extraordinarily long time. The dinosaurs dominated Earth for roughly 165 million years. They were not building toward consciousness. They were simply surviving within the conditions that favoured them.
Then an asteroid changed those conditions. A different branch of the tree suddenly had room to grow. If that rock had missed by a few thousand kilometres, you would not be reading this. Something else might be reading something else. Or nothing might be reading anything at all.
— ✦ —
II. What Complexity Science Actually Tells Us
We are living through a quiet revolution in how scientists think about the relationship between simple components and complex outcomes. It is called complexity science, and its central message is both beautiful and humbling. Complex systems — whether ant colonies, immune systems, economies or ecosystems — can produce behaviours that emerge from interactions among their components and cannot be understood simply by examining those components in isolation.
A neuron does not think by itself. An ant does not understand the architecture of the colony. An immune cell does not possess a complete model of the organism it is helping defend. Yet networks of neurons produce thought. Colonies produce collective behaviour. Immune systems recognise and respond to threats. The important thing is not simply the component. It is the relationship.
This is emergence: qualitatively new properties arising from organised interactions at a higher level. Water is wet; individual hydrogen and oxygen atoms are not. Life metabolises; carbon, nitrogen and phosphate do not metabolise independently. Mind perceives; an individual neuron does not contain a tiny person having thoughts.
What makes emergence philosophically disorienting is that it is often contingent. The same components, arranged differently, or subjected to different conditions, can produce radically different outcomes. Change the temperature at which early Earth’s chemistry occurred, the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, the availability of minerals, the structure of an ecosystem or the timing of a major environmental disruption, and everything downstream may change. Every stage constrains what comes next.
What happens next depends upon what happened before. This is path dependence. Evolution therefore does not resemble a ladder with a predetermined top. It resembles a landscape of branching possibilities, shaped by environmental pressures, feedback loops, historical contingencies, extinction events and the particular sequence in which things happen.
Intelligence, on this account, is not a destination built into the structure of the universe. It is a late, contingent, local emergent phenomenon that arose under a specific set of nested conditions — physical, chemical, geological, biological and ecological — each of which had to hold for the right duration without completely derailing the trajectory.
It held here. It may hold, or may have held, elsewhere.
But nowhere did it have to.
— ✦ —
III. The Branching Tree of Possible Minds
Consider, for a moment, what intelligence actually is. We use the word as though it refers to one thing. It does not. Human intelligence is a particular configuration of nervous-system organisation, perception, memory, learning, abstraction, social interaction, symbolic communication and planning that emerged in one lineage of African primates. It is indeed extraordinary.
It is also, in the enormous space of possible cognitive architectures, merely one possibility. Octopuses provide an obvious example of how strange cognition can already become on Earth. Their nervous systems are distributed in ways radically different from our own, with a substantial proportion of their neurons located in their arms. They solve problems, learn from experience and exhibit sophisticated behaviour despite having evolved along a completely separate evolutionary pathway from vertebrates.
Slime moulds provide an even stranger example. They have no neurons, yet can solve optimisation problems and form efficient networks while responding to local environmental information. The point is not that slime moulds are secretly little mathematicians. The point is that information processing does not require the particular biological architecture we associate with a brain.
Even plants complicate our assumptions. Plants communicate chemically, exchange resources and respond dynamically to their environments. Whether these processes should be called cognition in any meaningful sense is contested, and popular descriptions of plant communication sometimes go considerably further than the evidence permits. But the broader lesson remains. The space of possible information-processing architectures is larger than human neurology.
Now extend this reasoning across planetary timescales. A planet that produces life might produce, over billions of years, countless lineages with countless ways of sensing, processing information and responding to their environments. Some might develop something we would immediately recognise as intelligence. Others might develop distributed chemical cognition, collective swarm decision-making, extremely slow environmental processing or forms of information integration that have no obvious equivalent in human experience. And very few of these trajectories would necessarily lead to technology. Very few would necessarily lead to radio. Very few would necessarily produce the electromagnetic signatures that we have designed SETI to find. We have built much of our search for other minds around an assumption that deserves scrutiny: intelligence eventually becomes technological intelligence.
That may be true. But it is an assumption. And even on Earth, intelligence does not appear to be one thing.
— ✦ —
IV. Emergence Within Emergence
If intelligence itself can emerge from sufficiently complex biological systems, there is no obvious reason for emergence to stop there. Once a system capable of cognition exists, further layers of organisation can arise within it. Intelligence may therefore be understood not as a single, uniform capacity, but as an emergent phenomenon capable of differentiating into multiple specialised configurations. Human beings provide an extraordinary example.
We often speak of intelligence as though it were a single measurable substance — a quantity that one person possesses in greater or lesser amounts than another. Yet human cognitive ability is heterogeneous. Mathematical abstraction, physical reasoning, linguistic expression, musical composition, visual-spatial reasoning, artistic creation, social cognition, memory and creativity can develop to vastly different degrees and interact in different combinations, while traits such as curiosity and persistence can influence how those capacities develop and are expressed.
These do not necessarily need to be treated as completely separate intelligences. They can instead be understood as different configurations of a broader cognitive system: particular combinations of perception, memory, abstraction, pattern recognition, learning, imagination, curiosity and experience becoming organised around different kinds of problems. The variation becomes particularly visible in individuals whose abilities reach extraordinary levels.
Newton and Einstein developed exceptional capacities for mathematical and physical abstraction, constructing radically new models of the natural world. Beethoven demonstrated an extraordinary form of musical cognition, manipulating patterns of sound, structure, tension and emotional expression at levels that remain almost incomprehensible in their precision and depth.
Leonardo da Vinci may be the most striking example of all. Painting, anatomy, engineering, mechanics, sculpture, observation and natural philosophy were not isolated compartments for him. He moved between them with a curiosity that makes modern disciplinary boundaries look almost arbitrary — a single cognitive architecture integrating domains that most minds approach one at a time.
These examples do not indicate that one person simply possesses more intelligence than another. They reveal something more interesting: the architecture of intelligence can vary.
A cognitive system contains many interacting processes. Perception supplies information. Memory retains and reorganises it. Attention selects what receives cognitive resources. Pattern recognition identifies relationships. Abstraction compresses complexity into concepts. Imagination generates possibilities. Learning modifies internal models. Curiosity drives exploration towards information the system does not yet possess.
Through feedback, particular configurations can become increasingly specialised. A person encounters a domain. Curiosity drives exploration. Exploration produces knowledge. Knowledge improves pattern recognition. Improved pattern recognition produces better predictions. Better predictions produce successful outcomes. Success reinforces attention and motivation. More attention produces more learning.
Over sufficient time, the system itself changes. A specialised cognitive regime emerges that was not necessarily obvious from the system’s initial condition.
This is another form of emergence. Intelligence itself can therefore be understood as an emergence within emergence. Biological organisation produces nervous systems capable of cognition. Cognition produces intelligence. Intelligence, interacting with experience and environment, can produce specialised cognitive architectures. Those architectures can become extraordinarily developed, producing what we describe as genius, creativity or exceptional expertise.
The process need not produce a single hierarchy. It can branch.
And the process may continue beyond the individual. Intelligent organisms interact with one another, and their interactions can generate higher-order information-processing systems. Language allows knowledge to persist outside individual brains. Culture allows information to accumulate across generations. Scientific communities distribute cognition among thousands or millions of people. Institutions store procedures, models and collective memory. Technologies extend perception, calculation and communication beyond biological limitations.
At this level, emergence becomes recursive: intelligent components produce interacting intelligent systems, which produce collective intelligence, which produces new cognitive possibilities.
The individual mind may therefore not be the highest level at which intelligence can exist. And that matters enormously when we begin asking what intelligence might look like elsewhere.
— ✦ —
V. The Silence Is Not Absence
The Fermi Paradox is one of science’s most elegant unanswered questions. Enrico Fermi, during a 1950 conversation at Los Alamos, is commonly associated with the question that has haunted astronomers ever since: if the universe is this old, this vast, and the conditions for intelligent life are not vanishingly rare, then where is everybody?
The numbers are staggering. The Milky Way contains hundreds of billions of stars. A significant fraction possess planetary systems. Some planets occupy environments that may permit liquid water and complex chemistry. If life is common, and if some fraction of life-bearing worlds produce intelligence, and if some fraction of intelligent species become technological, then it is natural to wonder why the sky does not appear crowded with evidence.
And yet: silence. No radio signals we can confidently attribute to extraterrestrial intelligence. No confirmed megastructures. No visitors. The Great Silence sits at the centre of our cosmic self-conception like an unanswered question.
Get Vickacy k. Williams’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The standard responses tend toward the dramatic. Maybe intelligence is extraordinarily rare. Maybe technological civilisations destroy themselves. Maybe intelligent life becomes deliberately quiet. Maybe technological civilisation is a short evolutionary phase. Maybe there is something out there but we simply do not know what to look for. Each possibility carries its own implications.
But there is a quieter possibility, one that becomes more interesting when viewed through the lens of complex systems: temporal non-overlap.
Imagine a technological civilisation capable of producing detectable signals for ten thousand years. Ten thousand years sounds long from a human perspective. Against the age of the universe, it is almost nothing. A civilisation could arise, become technologically capable, communicate for thousands of years and disappear — through extinction, transformation, technological transition or some other process — long before another civilisation elsewhere reaches the same stage.
The galaxy may therefore contain a long history of intelligence without containing very much intelligence at the same time. A civilisation could have arisen two billion years ago, produced radio signals for fifty thousand years and then gone silent. Two billion years later, we would look towards that region of the sky and see nothing. The silence would be real. The intelligence would have been real too.
The galaxy may be full of ghosts. Civilisations that arose, flourished and disappeared — or transformed into something we would no longer recognise — separated from us not only by distance, but by time. Not absent. Non-overlapping.
And there is an additional complication. Civilisations do not merely exist in time. They exist in space, and information travels at a finite speed. What matters for detection is therefore not simply whether two civilisations existed simultaneously. What matters is whether their periods of detectable activity intersect with the spacetime region from which their signals can actually reach us.
A civilisation could have existed long ago and still be observable through signals emitted near the end of its detectable period. Conversely, a civilisation could exist now and remain completely invisible to us because its signals have not reached us, do not travel in our direction, or are not produced in a form we know how to detect.
The problem is therefore not simply: are they alive now? It is: do their detectable signatures intersect our observational window? That is a much stranger question.
There is a further complication, one that general relativity makes unavoidable.
We have been assuming, without quite saying so, that all civilisations experience time at roughly the same rate. They do not. According to one of the best-confirmed predictions in modern physics — gravitational time dilation — time passes more slowly in stronger gravitational fields. This is not metaphor. It is measured daily by the engineers who correct GPS satellites for the few microseconds of discrepancy between orbital and terrestrial clocks. Remove the correction, and navigation errors accumulate rapidly. The effect is real, and at sufficient scale, it is enormous.
A civilisation orbiting a planet with substantially stronger gravity than Earth, or existing in closer proximity to a neutron star or within the broader gravitational influence of a supermassive black hole, would experience time at a slower rate relative to us. Not metaphorically slower. Physically slower. What we experience as four million years of Homo sapiens might correspond to a hundred thousand years in their frame of reference. What we experience as a century of technological development might register as decades in theirs — or millennia.
This introduces a form of temporal misalignment that no amount of faster travel could correct. Two civilisations need not merely overlap in cosmic time. They must overlap in experienced time — in the actual duration of their respective technological windows as measured from within each civilisation’s own gravitational context. The probability of that conjunction is substantially lower than the temporal non-overlap argument alone suggests.
And when you add light-speed information lag to gravitational time dilation, the situation becomes stranger still. A signal sent during a civilisation’s communication window might arrive at our location long after its senders have experienced geological epochs. We might receive a message from a civilisation that, in their own experienced time, has been extinct for longer than our species has existed. The information would be real. The intelligence would have been real. The timing would simply be irreconcilable.
The universe does not synchronise its clocks. It never did. We built our intuitions about cosmic contact on the assumption that time passes the same way everywhere. It does not — and the Fermi Paradox looks considerably less paradoxical once that assumption is surrendered.
— ✦ —
VI. Intelligence as a Regime, Not a Destination
Here is how I have come to think about it.
Intelligence is not the endpoint of evolution. It is an emergent regime — a self-reinforcing configuration that, once it appears, can accelerate its own development through feedback loops. More intelligence produces better tools. Better tools extend the reach of intelligence. Extended reach produces better models of the world. Better models produce better tools. The loop accelerates.
This is the process that carried one species from stone tools to radio telescopes, spacecraft and quantum computers in an extraordinarily short period of evolutionary time.
But regimes in complex systems are not permanent. They are stable only within a range of conditions. Push those conditions outside that range — through environmental catastrophe, resource depletion, ecological disruption, internal conflict, technological failure or other disturbances — and the regime can destabilise. What follows may be extinction. Or transformation. Or recovery. Or another emergent regime entirely.
This means that across cosmic time, intelligence may flicker. It appears, develops, burns for a while at varying intensities and disappears — only to emerge again, perhaps millions of years later, perhaps in a completely different form, on the same planet or a different one. Not a candle that burns forever. More like a signal in noise. Intermittent. Contingent. Real when it appears, but not guaranteed to persist.
This reframes the Fermi Paradox. The question is no longer simply why the universe is silent if intelligence should be abundant. The question becomes: given the intermittent, contingent and potentially non-overlapping nature of intelligence across cosmic time, what should we actually expect to observe?
And the honest answer may be much less dramatic than we imagine. Perhaps a universe that appears mostly empty. Perhaps occasional traces. Perhaps ambiguous signals. Perhaps civilisations separated from one another by millions of years. Perhaps intelligence that emerges and disappears without ever becoming technological. Perhaps intelligence that becomes technological but ceases producing the signals we know how to detect.
Perhaps the silence around us is not cosmic loneliness. Perhaps it is cosmic asynchrony.
— ✦ —
VII. What This Means for Us
If intelligence is contingent, intermittent and non-overlapping, a few things follow that are worth sitting with.
The first is that our existence is extraordinarily contingent. The conditions that produced us were maintained across hundreds of millions of years, through mass extinctions, climatic changes, geological upheaval and countless evolutionary dead ends. We are here because an enormous chain of conditions happened to produce this particular outcome. Not miraculous — there is no evidence of a plan — but extraordinary nonetheless.
The second is that we may be alone in the present without being alone in the universe’s history. Other minds may have existed. They may exist now, so far away or so differently constituted that we have no means of detecting them. They may exist in the future, long after we are gone. The universe’s biography, told across its full 13.8-billion-year span, may contain far more intelligence than we can currently imagine — just not all at once, and not all in contact with each other.
The third is perhaps the most unsettling. If intelligence is a transient regime in a complex system, then it is subject to the same dynamics that govern other complex regimes. It can be disrupted by perturbation. It can be destabilised by feedback loops it creates but cannot control. It can exceed the adaptive capacity of the system that produced it. It can disappear. We are not exempt from the dynamics we are made of. We are, if anything, their most vivid current expression. And vivid is not the same as durable.
This is not a counsel of despair. It is a counsel of attention. A universe in which intelligence is rare, contingent and intermittent is a universe in which intelligence — when it appears — matters enormously. Not because the universe cares. But because, as far as we know, nothing else in the observable cosmos is asking these questions. Nothing else is looking up. Nothing else, as far as we know, has crossed the threshold from chemistry to consciousness and wondered what it means.
That wondering is not nothing. It may, in fact, be everything.
— ✦ —
Minds We Have Never Imagined
There is one final possibility worth considering.
If intelligence is an emergent phenomenon rather than a fixed biological template, then there is no reason to assume that every intelligent life-form in the universe would resemble the creatures we have imagined in science fiction. Our fictional aliens are usually projections of ourselves: large heads, eyes, limbs, faces, voices, personalities. Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, Predator and Independence Day give us memorable extraterrestrials, but even these imagined beings remain remarkably human in their basic architecture. They walk. They hunt. They communicate. They reproduce. They build societies and starships. They want things. They conquer. They fear. They scheme.
In other words, we change the alien’s appearance while quietly preserving ourselves. Perhaps that is a projection of our own vanity.
But evolution is not required to preserve that model.
Imagine a planet whose dominant intelligent system consists of organisms no larger than bacteria. Individually, they possess almost no meaningful intelligence. They move through the environment seeking chemical nutrients, perhaps extracting minerals and energy directly from rocks. They reproduce through simple division and have no natural predators. Yet billions or trillions of them interact continuously through chemical gradients and local signals, producing coordinated behaviour at the population level. The individual is insignificant. The swarm is the organism. Information does not reside in a brain but in the changing configuration of the collective. If intelligence emerged there, there might be no individual creature we could point to and call the intelligent species. The intelligence would exist in the network.
Now imagine an entirely different world: a planet sealed beneath kilometres of ice. Beneath the frozen surface drift translucent, gelatinous organisms through an ocean that never sees sunlight. They have no eyes because there is nothing to see. They filter nutrients from the water, absorb dissolved chemicals and reproduce by splitting into two. Each organism survives for perhaps three months before dying and becoming food for others of its kind. There are no childhoods lasting years. No ageing civilisation. No individual that expects to live for decades. Yet suppose that, through millions of generations, their interactions produced increasingly sophisticated collective information processing. Their intelligence would exist within a life cycle almost incomprehensibly brief compared with ours. What we consider a lifetime might represent an entire civilisation to them.
Consider another planet covered by vast forests of structures resembling trees but possessing no leaves, flowers or familiar reproductive organs. Their roots extend kilometres into the ground and into subterranean reservoirs, filtering minerals, dissolved gases and nutrients from salty water. They may live for thousands of years. Their responses to environmental changes might unfold over decades. When one finally collapses, its body becomes part of the soil, feeding smaller organisms that specialise in consuming the remains of the dead. Perhaps information is transmitted chemically through the root networks, allowing generations of these organisms to collectively respond to changes in their environment. Their thoughts, if that word is even appropriate, might unfold so slowly that an entire human lifetime would constitute little more than a moment in their cognition.
And perhaps intelligence could emerge in something that is not conventionally alive at all. Imagine a planet with an atmosphere rich in electrically active particles and a highly dynamic magnetic field. Over immense periods of time, complex self-organising electromagnetic structures develop within the atmosphere. They form, interact, dissipate and reform. No single structure survives indefinitely, but information about previous configurations influences subsequent ones. Eventually, the atmospheric system develops persistent patterns capable of modelling its environment, responding to disturbances and modifying its own behaviour. There is no brain. No body. Perhaps no individual organism. There is simply a dynamic physical system in which information has become organised strongly enough to produce something resembling cognition.
None of these examples is a prediction or observation. They are merely exercises in expanding the space of possibility. The important question is not whether these particular forms exist — we have no evidence that they do. The question is whether our definition of intelligence has become constrained by the single example available to us: ourselves.
Perhaps an intelligent organism does not need a head. Perhaps it does not need eyes. Perhaps it does not need an individual body, a long lifespan, language, technology or even a recognisable boundary between itself and its environment. Perhaps intelligence can be fast or unimaginably slow. Individual or collective. Biological or distributed. Persistent or transient.
Perhaps somewhere in the history of the universe, intelligence has already taken forms that would be almost impossible for us to recognise as intelligence at all. The universe has had billions of years to experiment. We have seen only one result.
— ✦ —
Coda: What We Cannot Know
I want to be honest about the limits of this argument, because intellectual honesty is the only thing that separates speculation from useful speculation.
We have one confirmed example of technological intelligence: ourselves. Everything else — the probability of life on other planets, the likelihood of intelligence evolving from life, the typical duration of technological civilisations, the range of possible cognitive architectures — involves varying degrees of inference and uncertainty. This is an epistemological situation without precedent. We are trying to understand the distribution of a phenomenon from an extraordinarily small sample.
What complexity science gives us is not certainty. It gives us a framework: a set of concepts — emergence, contingency, path dependence, feedback, regime dynamics, extinction, resilience and temporal dynamics — that make the question more tractable without making it answerable. It tells us something about the kinds of processes through which intelligence might arise and change. It does not tell us how often those processes occur. It does not tell us how long intelligent regimes survive. It does not tell us whether intelligence commonly becomes technological. And it certainly does not tell us what an alien mind would look like.
The temporal non-overlap hypothesis — including the gravitational dimension explored in Section V — is not a solution to the Fermi Paradox. It is a reframing. It opens the possibility that the silence is asynchrony rather than absence, compounded by a universe that does not synchronise its clocks across gravitational gradients. These are possibilities, not proofs. A reframing is not a solution. Imagination, however disciplined, is not observation.
The universe is older, stranger and more patient than any single species’ imagination can fully hold. Intelligence — our kind, with our particular anxieties, curiosities, talents and blind spots — is a very recent development in a very old system. We have been asking questions for a very small fraction of cosmic history. The universe has been doing whatever it does for 13.8 billion years.
In that context, the absence of an answer to Fermi’s question is not particularly surprising. What would be surprising — genuinely, deeply surprising — is if we already knew enough to expect one.
— ✦ —
Further Reading
Readers wishing to explore the scientific literature underlying these ideas may find the following starting points useful: Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems (2008); Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe (1995); Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (1989), on contingency in evolution; Amedeo Balbi’s work on the temporal distribution of communicating civilisations; Melanie Mitchell, Complexity: A Guided Tour (2009), on emergence, adaptation and complex systems; and the International Journal of Astrobiology for current peer-reviewed research on these questions. Adrian Tchaikovsky’s Children of Time series offers a particularly useful fictional exploration of non-human intelligence trajectories.
