Loading...

Please wait while we retrieve your documents

ARCHIVES

Original Article

Dr. Sodhi's Model of Intelligence-An Empirically Validated Unified Software-Hardware Architecture across Biological and Artificial Intelligence

Dr. Nitnem Singh Sodhi1

1 Doctorate (Hon.) in Neuropsychology, Fellowship-trained in Clinical Psychiatry Ex-Medical Specialist (Psychologist) at Indian Air Force and presently at Apollo Clinics, and Independent Researcher based in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Published Online: May-August 2026

Pages: 48-61

Cite this article

No Doi
check update

Abstract

Research on intelligence remains divided among behavioral definitions, cognitive architectures, computational principles, and physical implementations. Building on the Unimind Metamodel and the Unibrain Theory, this paper formalizes the Dr. Sodhi's Model of Intelligence (SMI): a unified cross-substrate architecture in which intelligence is produced by the coupling of functional organization, physical realization, and environment-directed interaction. SMI specifies representational state, associative memory, reusable operations, relevance-based gating, prediction and counterfactual simulation, valuation, operational self-modeling, learning, and consolidation, together with the computational units, state dynamics, connectivity, signaling, storage, plasticity, and resource budgets that physically realize them. The model is already empirically validated in a defined convergent sense: independent findings in neural population dynamics, dendritic computation, cognitive mapping, predictive processing, selective attention, neuromodulation, plasticity, and sleep-dependent consolidation support its biological postulates, while transformers, graph networks, retrieval systems, external memory, mixtures of experts, world models, continual-learning methods, and neuromorphic hardware independently instantiate its principal artificial-system roles. This is validation of the component architecture, its cross-level correspondence, and its recurrence across substrates; it is not a claim that one experiment has proved the universal necessity of the complete conjunction. The strongest remaining proposition is conditional: systems pursuing persistent, open-ended adaptive competence under partial observability, non-stationarity, long horizons, multiple objectives, and finite resources must instantiate functional equivalents of the complete architecture, although roles may be fused, distributed, or realized through different mechanisms. Narrow systems may instantiate only subsets. Functional correspondence does not establish biological identity, consciousness, or moral equivalence. Causal ablation, cross-substrate perturbation, continual-learning, and hardware-efficiency tests keep the necessity and interaction claims open to falsification. SMI is therefore advanced as an empirically validated and prospectively testable architectural normal form for biological and artificial intelligence.

Previous

References

  • 1. Nitnem Singh Sodhi. The Unimind Metamodel & Therapy - An Unified Functional Framework of Mind that Explains All Its Faculties and

  • Provides a Novel Treatment Methodology for Mental Disorders. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering

  • Technology. 2020;8(4):399-405. doi:10.22214/ijraset.2020.4063.

  • 2. Nitnem Singh Sodhi. The Unibrain Theory - An Unified Functional Architecture of the Brain Which Explains How the Brain Encodes,

  • Stores and Processes Information, Explains Consciousness and the Function of Sleep and Dreams. International Journal for Research in

  • Applied Science and Engineering Technology. 2020;8(5):1885-1888. doi:10.22214/ijraset.2020.5304.

  • 3. Dr. Nitnem Singh Sodhi, “The Unified Architecture of Neuropsychology-A Comprehensive Review of the Unibrain Theory and the

  • Unimind Metamodel with Contemporary Empirical Evidence”, Indian Journal of Clinical and Medical Research, Volume 01, Issue 02,

  • May-August 2026, PP: 22-29.

  • 4. Dr. Nitnem Singh Sodhi, “The Unimind-Unibrain Double-Convergence Thesis: Why Major Artificial-Intelligence Architectures Tend

  • Toward the Same Software-Hardware Metamodel Emerging from Contemporary Neuroscience”, Indian Journal of Clinical and Medical

  • Research, Volume 01, Issue 02, May-August 2026, PP: 34-47. Journal article.

  • 5. Marr D. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: WH

  • Freeman; 1982.

  • 6. Legg S, Hutter M. Universal intelligence: a definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines. 2007;17:391-444.

  • doi:10.1007/s11023-007-9079-x.

  • 7. Chollet F. On the measure of intelligence. arXiv:1911.01547. 2019.

  • 8. Newell A. Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990.

  • 9. Anderson JR, Bothell D, Byrne MD, Douglass S, Lebiere C, Qin Y. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review.

  • 2004;111(4):1036-1060. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036.

  • 10. Laird JE, Lebiere C, Rosenbloom PS. A Standard Model of the Mind: toward a common computational framework across artificial

  • intelligence, cognitive science, neuroscience, and robotics. AI Magazine. 2017;38(4):13-26. doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i4.2744.

  • 11. Friston K. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2010;11(2):127-138. doi:10.1038/nrn2787.

  • 12. Clark A. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

  • 2013;36(3):181-204. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000477.

  • 13. LeCun Y. A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence. Version 0.9.2. OpenReview; 2022. OpenReview PDF.

  • 14. Vyas S, Golub MD, Sussillo D, Shenoy KV. Computation through neural population dynamics. Annual Review of Neuroscience.

  • 2020;43:249-275. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-092619-094115.15. La Camera G, Fontanini A, Mazzucato L. Cortical computations via metastable activity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2019;58:37-45.

  • doi:10.1016/j.conb.2019.06.007.

  • 16. Pang JC, Aquino KM, Oldehinkel M, Robinson PA, Fulcher BD, Breakspear M, et al. Geometric constraints on human brain function.

  • Nature. 2023;618:566-574. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06098-1.

  • 17. Gidon A, Zolnik TA, Fidzinski P, Bolduan F, Papoutsi A, Poirazi P, et al. Dendritic action potentials and computation in human layer 2/3

  • cortical neurons. Science. 2020;367(6473):83-87. doi:10.1126/science.aax6239.

  • 18. Beniaguev D, Segev I, London M. Single cortical neurons as deep artificial neural networks. Neuron. 2021;109(17):2727-2739.e3.

  • doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.07.002.

  • 19. Tolman EC. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review. 1948;55(4):189-208. doi:10.1037/h0061626.

  • 20. Behrens TEJ, Muller TH, Whittington JCR, Mark S, Baram AB, Stachenfeld KL, et al. What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge

  • for flexible behavior. Neuron. 2018;100(2):490-509. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002.

  • 21. Constantinescu AO, O’Reilly JX, Behrens TEJ. Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a gridlike code. Science.

  • 2016;352(6292):1464-1468. doi:10.1126/science.aaf0941.

  • 22. Whittington JCR, Muller TH, Mark S, Chen G, Barry C, Burgess N, et al. The Tolman-Eichenbaum Machine: unifying space and relational

  • memory through generalization in the hippocampal formation. Cell. 2020;183(5):1249-1263.e23. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.024.

  • 23. Rao RPN, Ballard DH. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects.

  • Nature Neuroscience. 1999;2(1):79-87. doi:10.1038/4580.

  • 24. Desimone R, Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 1995;18:193-222.

  • doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205.

  • 25. Schacter DL, Addis DR. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical

  • Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2007;362(1481):773-786. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2087.

  • 26. Schultz W. Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: a two-component response. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2016;17(3):183-195.

  • doi:10.1038/nrn.2015.26.

  • 27. Shine JM, Muller EJ, Munn B, Cabral J, Moran RJ, Breakspear M. Computational models link cellular mechanisms of neuromodulation to

  • large-scale neural dynamics. Nature Neuroscience. 2021;24(6):765-776. doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00824-6.

  • 28. Barrett LF. The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and

  • Affective Neuroscience. 2017;12(1):1-23. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw154.

  • 29. Tononi G, Cirelli C. Sleep and the price of plasticity: from synaptic and cellular homeostasis to memory consolidation and integration.

  • Neuron. 2014;81(1):12-34. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.12.025.

  • 30. de Vivo L, Bellesi M, Marshall W, Bushong EA, Ellisman MH, Tononi G, et al. Ultrastructural evidence for synaptic scaling across the

  • wake-sleep cycle. Science. 2017;355(6324):507-510. doi:10.1126/science.aah5982.

  • 31. Klinzing JG, Niethard N, Born J. Mechanisms of systems memory consolidation during sleep. Nature Neuroscience. 2019;22(10):1598-

  • 1610. doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0467-3.

  • 32. McCulloch WS, Pitts W. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 1943;5:115-

  • 133. doi:10.1007/BF02478259.

  • 33. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature. 1986;323(6088):533-536.

  • doi:10.1038/323533a0.

  • 34. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444. doi:10.1038/nature14539.

  • 35. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, et al. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information

  • Processing Systems. 2017;30:5998-6008.

  • 36. Battaglia PW, Hamrick JB, Bapst V, Sanchez-Gonzalez A, Zambaldi V, Malinowski M, et al. Relational inductive biases, deep learning,

  • and graph networks. arXiv:1806.01261. 2018.

  • 37. Lewis P, Perez E, Piktus A, Petroni F, Karpukhin V, Goyal N, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks.

  • Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2020;33:9459-9474.

  • 38. Graves A, Wayne G, Danihelka I. Neural Turing Machines. arXiv:1410.5401. 2014.

  • 39. Shazeer N, Mirhoseini A, Maziarz K, Davis A, Le Q, Hinton G, et al. Outrageously large neural networks: the sparsely-gated mixture-of-

  • experts layer. International Conference on Learning Representations. 2017.

  • 40. Fedus W, Zoph B, Shazeer N. Switch Transformers: scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. Journal of

  • Machine Learning Research. 2022;23(120):1-39.

  • 41. Driess D, Xia F, Sajjadi MSM, Lynch C, Chowdhery A, Ichter B, et al. PaLM-E: an embodied multimodal language model. Proceedings

  • of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2023;202:8469-8488.

  • 42. Trinh TH, Wu Y, Le QV, He H, Luong T. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations. Nature. 2024;625(7995):476-482.

  • doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5.

  • 43. Hafner D, Pasukonis J, Ba J, Lillicrap T. Mastering diverse control tasks through world models. Nature. 2025;640(8059):647-653.

  • doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08744-2.

  • 44. Schrittwieser J, Antonoglou I, Hubert T, Simonyan K, Sifre L, Schmitt S, et al. Mastering Atari, Go, chess and shogi by planning with a

  • learned model. Nature. 2020;588(7839):604-609. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03051-4.

  • 45. Kirkpatrick J, Pascanu R, Rabinowitz N, Veness J, Desjardins G, Rusu AA, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.

  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2017;114(13):3521-3526. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611835114.

  • 46. Chavlis S, Poirazi P. Dendrites endow artificial neural networks with accurate, robust and parameter-efficient learning. Nature

  • Communications. 2025;16(1):943. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56297-9.

  • 47. Modha DS, Akopyan F, Andreopoulos A, Appuswamy R, Arthur J, Cassidy A, et al. Neural inference at the frontier of energy, space, and

  • time. Science. 2023;382(6668):329-335. doi:10.1126/science.adh1174.

  • 48. Davies M, Wild A, Orchard G, Sandamirskaya Y, Guerra GA, Joshi P, et al. Advancing neuromorphic computing with Loihi: a survey of

  • results and outlook. Proceedings of the IEEE. 2021;109(5):911-934. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2021.3067593.

  • 49. Dr. Nitnem Singh Sodhi, “Introducing Software Neurotechnology for Artificial Intelligence”, Indian Journal of Computer Science and

  • Technology, Volume 05, Issue 02 (May-August 2026), PP: 819-827.

Citations

Dr. Nitnem Singh Sodhi, “Dr. Sodhi's Model of Intelligence-An Empirically Validated Unified Software-Hardware Architecture across Biological and Artificial Intelligence”, Indian Journal of Clinical and Medical Research, Volume 01, Issue 02, May-August 2026, PP: 48-61.

Article Metrics

324
Views
0
Citations
PlumX Metrics PlumX Metrics
Dimension Dimension

Licensing

© 2026 The Author(s). Published by Fifth Dimension Research Publication.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

Related Articles in this Issue

Read Article
Read Article
Read Article
Read Article
Read Article
Read Article