NEXGEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Geerligs BV

Business activity

Geerligs BV business activity is Research & Development in Next Generation Artificial Intelligence (NexGen AI).

Vision

The company vision is that NexGen AI requires the integration of cognitive, social, and natural sciences into one holistic mathematical model. Otherwise, combining responsibility (a function of cognitive science), communication (a function of social science), and trustworthiness (a function of natural science) on one platform cannot be achieved by definition.

Mission

The company mission is to develop an AI application crossing the boundary to strong & generic AI. This can only be achieved by identification of a mathematical structure that satisfies a number of criteria, including: 

- Vertical scalability / Strong AI, the scalability within a discipline.

- Horizontal scalability / Generic AI, the scalability cross-discipline.

- Completeness. No information loss means no assumptions.

- System definition. You must be able to define a system without having to model the entire world.

- Non-linearity. Drink nothing you die, drink something you live, drink too much you die; so no fixed cause & effect modelling.

- Input / Output. You must be able to give input / output in a dynamic system.

- Interconnectedness of data. The link to all other data must remain intact.

- Scientific compliance. The model must comply to science, meaning all branches and subbranches of science. 

Research & Development

Methodology

R&D methodology is based on engineering methodology to develop projects through serveral stages of design. The first phase is Value Identification / Research and the second phase is Value Realization / Development. The objective of the Value Identification phase is to select the concept with the highest value to the project. The objective of the Value Realization phase is to add layers of detail to the concept. The Value potential is created in Value Identification and as such the Value Realization is limited to the potential value of the selected concept.

Approach

As is the case in engineering, the R&D approach is cross-discipline. The single discipline approach attempts to make new discoveries at the frontier of its scientific field. In contrast, the cross-disciplinary approach attempts to explore and compare proven science from natural, social, and cognitive science and all it's branches to identify common structural aspects and to learn from solutions in one area that can be applied in another. In both approaches you will find you can get easily stuck, at which point the cross-discipline approach offers a way out by switching to other disciplines. Listening carefully to what nature is trying to tell, you have a chance to see the way forward through cross-discipline convergence towards common solutions so subtile you would otherwise not notice.

Inspiration

Inspiration and guidance is found in the work of Martin Armstrong, see www.armstrongeconomics.com and www.ask-socrates.com. It is amazing how the accomplishments of Martin Armstrong remain publicly unrecognized even though they can be easily verified by track record as well as in live market action all predicted by his artificial intelligent quantum computer. In other words, what is presented on this website as a proposition has been in operation for many years and is proven technology. Let me be clear, all credits to Martin, his system is way ahead. When will the public start to pay attention?

Initiation

12-10-2022

Presentation

To kick-off the newfound company, Geerligs BV Artificial Intelligence R&D presented on World Summit AI (worldsummit.ai) on Wednesday 12 October at 13:00 hours, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Please find below the presentation slides.

BLOG

The justice system vs human nature

04-08-2024

When we apply the same logic on the justice system we walk into an interesting problem. The basis of the justice system is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law, we all have equal rights. This seems different from communism, where everyone is equal (but some are more equal then others), and communism didn't work because it is opposed to human nature that works in it's own self interest. How can it then be explained that it is in our own self interest that everyone has equal rights??? Equal rights is the self interest of a community, not self-interest. Clearly, it is in your self-interest to have more rights (and power) than others. So this logic doesn't seem to apply.

However, if we turn this around it is clear that it is in your self-interest that others do not have more rights then you have. Therefore, in order to work, justice must be negative (a restraint) and not positive (a right). Your self interest is that you must not have more restrains then others have. A negative justice system would comply with human nature. Consequently, the justice system is about restraints, not rights. It is only because of equal restraints that we seem to end up with equal rights, but these rights are really never defined and as such remain implicit. Even when we look at the 10 commandments we notice that these are 10 restraints (Thou shall not ...) which only imply you have rights.

What is money?

04-08-2024

Yes, humans are social and understand that not everything can be to their own benefit, but is needs to be reasonable. We will need some form of socialism, but does this necessarily need to be established through the means of taxation? Armstrong makes the point  that taxation is only necessary when money is tangible and you need to receive it back in order to spent in again. When money is digital, money can basically be created through a key board entry and taxation is no longer required. Taxation is a relic of the past

Since the money creation by the government is really a small part of the total money creation, which is established mostly by commercial banks borrowing money and then leveraging and lending it out, the resulting inflationary pressure of creating this money by government is very much limited as long as it stays at reasonable levels compared to GDP. (And this is even before discussing correctness the quantitative monetary theory.)

The economic system vs human nature

27-07-2024

If we look at the economic system vs human nature we can see parallels to the workings of the political system vs human nature.

Here as well, power and ideology play a major role. The terms communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism trigger so many prejudices that we cannot have a discussion even before we start. So maybe we should just forget about these terms and focus on their characteristics, which is the (de)centralization of economic power through ownership. Either the ownership is more on the public side or on the private side. This is basically it.

• Strongest centralization of economic power: communism; the state directly owns everything in the economy
• Strong centralization of economic power: fascism; the state indirectly owns everything in the economy through dictate
• Strong to moderate centralization of economic power: socialism; the state indirectly owns part of the economy through taxation
• Decentralization of economic power in the economy: capitalism; private ownership
  

If we look at history, we can see the same pattern as with the political system. Capitalism is the only system in which self-interest and ownership are aligned. In the other systems one side forces a deal on the other side which is beneficial only for one side, the state, which has historically always failed in the end. The stronger the involuntary deal is forced, the shorter the lifespan of the economic system. Indeed, the mix of socialism with capitalism ends when the state's piece of the pie becomes too large by unsustainable levels of taxation. When both sides enter a voluntary deal it is beneficial for both sides. It is simple in the end, an economic system where everybody benefits is what lasting communities are build upon.

Physics vs mathematics

26-07-2024

Quantum theory basically means everything is quantized; not analog but digital. On our scale everything just seems analog since the digits are so small. If things are quantized, there must also be a minimum and a maximum to everything. This means everything must also be relative to this minimum and maximum. We can directly see here how quantum theory and relativity align.

Still, we commonly apply mathematics by using derivatives which be their definition assume that changes can be infinitesimally small or can go to unlimited, which is like operating in a vacuum. Yes, results are reliable. No, it cannot possibly describe nature correctly. The assumption in mathematics that 'infinitesimally small' and 'unlimited' exist is obviously wrong.

The political system vs human nature

26-07-2024

Experiments of men ruling over men have continuously failed in the end. The main cause is human nature itself. The political job is to represent the public interest, while human nature is to look for self interest. The system is lost once public interest is exchanged for self interest.

• No one in charge (anarchy)
• One ruling the many (monarchy / despotism)
• A minority ruling the majority (aristocracy)
• The majority ruling the minority (republic / representative democracy)
• Everybody ruling (direct democracy)

In the design of a new political system we must accept human nature for what it is and not try to change it out of ideology. Human nature is to pursue its self interest. This is a given. The only system in which you are supposed to represent your self interest is a direct democracy. Only here human nature and the political system are in alignment.

Compliance in science

27-05-2024

'The model must maintain compliance over all sciences, meaning all branches and subbranches of science.' What does it mean?

For example, if we look just at physics as one of the branches of science, it indeed includes the merger of its subbranches thermodynamics, classical physics, relativity, quantum physics, wave theory, chaos theory, and complexity into one consistent model. The same goes for any other branch of science with their subbranches. Each subbranch complies again to the same overall model.

The evolution of life

15-05-2024

It may be coincidences leading to life, but that does not make life a coincidence.

Darwin conceptualized the evolution of life as a 'survival of the fittest' which refers to the coincidences that persist because they fit the circumstances best. This same concept is applicable to the coincidences that fit the holistic model best.

Coincidences that work persist, while coincidences that don't simply don't. So why do some coincidences work and others don't? This is because they comply with the omnipresent preexisting underlying holistic structure of our universe.

It is no coincidence that the structure of life and how it developed here on earth, consisting of DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates,  enzymes, etc. exactly fit this structure. Then, it is also no coincidence that some coincidences fit better then others resulting in natural selection and therefore evolution.

Happiness

20-04-2024

Psychoanalysis' central concept considers the id, ego, and superego as three distinct but interacting agents, where the id can be understood as the instinctive desire, the superego as the critical and moralizing role, and the ego as the organized, realistic agent that mediates between the instinctual desires of the id and the critical superego.

Psychoanalysis has been moving to the background over time, which is an example how knowledge is lost in time. I think this is mainly because the concept is not completely understood, resulting in more and more elaborate interpretations and difficult to understand explanations of the concept, ending in general confusion.

Anyways, to me the central concept looks useful, and with a slightly different interpretation it might even become practical. If we simply interpret the id, ego, and superego as respectively your past projection, present projection, and future projection we can directly and easily analyze if these past, present, and future projections align or not. For example, happiness in that state in the present where what has formed you in the past makes sense for what you want to become in the future.

Time

15-04-2024

We consider time as linear, as a line. In hindsight, we will wonder how we could possibly see time as a line considering all evidence that time is cyclical. Again, we are looking the answer straight in the eye but we cannot see. Surely time is there, looking for us as well in order to be discovered. Soon enough, linear time will join flat earth on the scrap heap of its time zone opening the door to the cyclical age.

Time is a vortex (cyclical), longitudinal and transverse all in one, with a complex structure and chaotic behavior, consisting simultaneously of past, present, and future, which are pushed and pulled in four dimensions that again repeat on each level of its complexity. Martin Armstrong knows this, and probably a whole lot more, better then anyone already for the past decades and has as such been living in the future for quite a while now.

Fighting the man in the mirror

15-04-2024

If we look who is in conflict, we see Russia versus Ukraine, North versus South Korea, China versus Taiwan, Muslims versus Jews (with Christians doing a real good effort to join the team), Democrats versus Republicans, and Socialists versus Capitalists. The likeness between the parties is so striking, one must wonder why in God's name we are fighting our brothers.

If we consider the story that appears in the Bible, Koran, Torah, and older religions, of God banishing Cain (the crop farmer) for murdering his brother Abel (the livestock farmer) we can also see an external conflict (between farmers in competition for the use of the land) causing inner struggle (jealousy). After God rules the conflict in favor of Abel, Cain murders his brother. Can the murder perhaps be understood as a result of Cain's lost inner struggle? Was judgement then not passed on how well Cain was able to deal with his inner struggle, and was Cain not banished to earth to learn to cope with his inner struggle? So what is God's plan here? God appears as the judge, but like any father, he wants his children, god's children, to learn to take the right decisions themselves, even in difficult circumstances which happen to be abundant on earth, so that the children's judgement can ultimately be relied upon, after which they will be able to stand on their own as grown-ups, and His judgement will no longer be required.

If we take a wider view on this theme, is the central theme in Christianity, forgiveness, not referring to the inner struggle versus external conflict? Is the central theme in the Koran, jihad (holy war), not referring to the inner struggle versus external conflict? Ying-yang, Karma, harts (Democrats) and minds (Republicans), and equality (Socialists) versus freedom (Capitalists), you've got it; they're all pointing in the same direction, suggesting this is the central theme and therefore meaning of life. Ultimately, we need to learn to deal with the man in the mirror.

The sweet spot in time

29-03-2024

Look in to your mind with a question and the universe will show the answer, for those who are willing to see. ‘What to do with all this?’ is the question. Through the fog of time the answer has revealed itself and has come in clear focus: Just don’t make the same mistake as Einstein did.

After the war, when all energy for war is lost and we need maximum momentum to get it right this time for the benefit of human kind, may be the sweet spot in time to publish the structure of the universe.

Financing a startup

29-03-2024

Exploration of the various options for financing a startup led me to the conclusion that I would be better off attempting financing it myself. I phased out as employee to phase in as a company in industrial project management to generate sufficient funds to phase into futures trading using AE pro subscription. While getting the hang of this, a long term trading & consultancy endeavor also materialized and this spin-off will be supplying Big Oil for the coming years with products. This was all meant to finance the AI start-up, but I realize now I will probably not need this startup for income, which should give me the opportunity to publish when the time is right.

Political power

29-03-2024

Our primitive reaction to the loss of power is to fight. The Greek did, Romans did, Spain did, the Netherlands did, England did, and so will the USA. Obviously, the decision to go to war already has been made. Leadership is just looking for the right excuse to sell the war to the public. The only question left is what the false flag will be this time.

Clearly, on the political level we face difficulty to understand the motor / generator principle. An electric motor converts electricity into mechanical energy, providing a power source for machinery. A generator does the opposite of this, converting mechanical energy into electricity.

One country cannot be the financial motor of the world forever. Even the best need time to regenerate. It is not possible to escape this natural law. The ‘loss of power’ is the time you get to regenerate and some other country will have the opportunity to serve as the financial powerhouse for the rest to regenerate on. From the use of mobile phones everybody knows that the quickest route back to full power is to recharge, not to smash the battery.

More than meets the eye

29-03-2024

Magnetic Fingerprints of The Milky Way's Black Hole Revealed in Stunning Image

https://www.sciencealert.com/magnetic-fingerprints-of-the-milky-ways-black-hole-revealed-in-stunning-image

The problem statement

31-07-2023

What is the problem?

Einstein mentioned that 'if he had an hour to solve a problem he would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes  about solutions". Why? Because, before coming to any form of solution one must first have a good understanding what the actual problem is. So, what ís the problem? This is number one.

Why can't we see the solution?

Number two is that we need to come to understand why we cannot see the solution. Most people whould reason that the concept of the solution itself is too difficult to comprehend. This is not the case. When looking at solutions that have been thought of in the past it turns out these concepts are often easy to explain to even 5 year olds. For example that the world is round, or the concept of gravity explaining why you don't fall of this round earth. In fact, when things are not very well understood the answer tends to be difficult, but when things are well understoond the answer is often straightforward, in hindsight. The answer was straight in front of our nose all the time but we couldn't see it. Why? We cannot see the solution because we are ourselves part of the problem. According to Einstein, "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them". We are hardwired by our current beliefs and as a consequence these beliefs are the only thing we can see.

Correct but not complete

Number three, to remove ourselves from the problem to become a part of the solution requires literally rewiring our own brain. We need a technique to by-pass our current beliefs. Then we need the commitment to challenge everything we believe in over a considerable period of time since breaking down and rebuilding brainstructure is a slow process. Rebuilding requires the effort of exploring new areas where we might be completely uncomfortable. We must understand that we are a child of our time, and 200 years from now our beliefs will be pretty much outdated, as the ideas from 200 years ago are outdated today. It is not that these people in the past were less intelligent. They had exactly the same capabilities as we have currently. We must understand we are them, only 200 years later. Certain things we belief in very strongly today must obviously be incomplete. Let's take the very core of what we believe, that our reality consists of three space dimensions and a time dimension. We are absolutely convinced about this. Still, this concept of space-time cannot even define what 'an idea' or 'a thought' is. It is very obvious and right in front of our nose that this concept is correct but not complete. Einstein mentioned that quantum theory is correct but not complete. This applies not only to quantum theory, but to everything else as well.

Artificial versus Real Quantum Computing

26-06-2023

Is there a difference?

From the surface it would appear that artifical quantum computing (a software quantum computer using conventional hardware) and real quantum computing (using a physical quantum computer) are comparable. In fact, their capabilities are very different and instead of comparable they are complimentary.

Is speed all we need?

The strength of the real version is that it adds tremendous capacity to perform many calculations in short duration. But once that higher speed has been accomplished you are confronted directly with the next problem. What do you apply that speed on? You will need to feed that system with mathematical models. Here it's weakness is revealed; these mathematical models themselves have flaws. With that I mean that these models do not comply with the intrinsic design of nature itself. Given the nature of chaos theory that a small change in the starting position can cause a completely different end result you will soon be lost in the results. Another thing is that it will be difficult to determine how the real system came up with an answer. But more importantly, adding speed will not by itself lead to learning, awareness, reasoning, responsibility, communication, trustworthyness, etc.

Or do we need all, at a little lower speed?

The strenght of the artificial version is in the mathematical model. The advantage of working in the right structure is that advanced features like learning, awareness, reasoning, responsibility, communication, trustworthyness can be accomplished. Running it on conventional hardware will ensure low costs, a pocket-size solution, but may affect speed while it's capability will still be impressive. Basically it enables Pocket-sized Artificial Intelligent Quantum Computing.

To my opinion the capabilities of the artificial version go beyond the capabilities of the real version. In the end, the combination of the strengths of both versions will provide the most powerful application.

Everyone will own everything and be happy

12-04-2024

Are people prepared to give up their jobs to AI?

I would think it depends. If that AI completely replaces people reducing their income to zero, this is of course not in the personal interest of that person and he/she would object, and rightly so. However, if the AI does the work while the person continues to receive the benefits, the implementation is aligned with personal interest and we open a discussion of the terms and conditions under which we would necessarily operate.

Terms & conditions

For the person to receive the benefits, the person must also own that AI. In order to perform the job as the owner would, the AI needs to be trained by that person. In order to perform the job in line with that persons thinking, the AI needs to actually be able to really mimic that persons thinking and interface. To not compete with other jobs, the AI must be limited to the scope of that person's job only. At least in the beginning this construction would be fair. Everyone keeps the job they already had and everyone owns their own AI. The old and the new system exist in parallel and the new system is in principle fully reversible.

Evolution

Once AI's have been trained you naturally come to a situation where you interface your AI with other AI's leading to a network of AI's  interfacing with each other. Of course the network of AI's will be stronger than the individual AI's. Realizing that good cooperation in the network is the key, it is in people's personal benefit to start sharing more things in this network until the point that they will share everything they own in exchange for a piece of ownership of what everyone else in the network owns. This evolves to a situation where everyone owns everything and be happy. People will be happy because this network performs best when everywhere in the network the conditions are good. When there's upheavel somewhere in the network everyone pays the price. Everyone benefits when everywhere in the network conditions are optimal. This end game seems unstoppable since this is where the water will flow naturally.

A new age of enlightenment

10-04-2023

Why we are currently stuck

Since the last age of enlightenment (1637-1804AD), education is stuck in teaching Newtonian single cause-effect relationships. Science is stuck with the scientific method which deals with two variables at the time while the others are kept constant in the controlled conditions of a laboratory. Science has already proven that reality is more complex than that through wave theory, relativity, quantum theory, and chaos theory. The real world outside the laboratory is multiple-cause multiple-effect. It has a multitude of variables which are related and are changing all the time. We are stuck in education and science because we do not have a proper methodology to structure, model, and analyze complex systems.

Crossing the line in time

At the time of the company kick-off presentation on 12 October 2022 the status was that I could only open the door, but couldn't walk in yet. The status as of 10 April 2023 is that the door is open and I've made it inside. It shows not only that complex systems are highly structured multiple-cause multiple-effect systems. It shows that this structure is multiple-means multiple-ends, or multipurpose, and even a whole lot more than that. Clearly, the structure of intelligence is imbedded in the structure of nature. Like a line in the sand that is crossed, here a line in time is being crossed from which we will move to a complete different understanding of reality on all levels. Our thinking process will make a phase transition to a higher level of awareness opening a whole new educational and scientific frontier in a new age of enlightenment; the Cyclical Age.

Contemplation

15-10-2022

What's next?

This is the question I was asked after presenting at WSAI 2022: ‘What’s next?’. I will share what I think about that. In the event of no response, I will follow the plan in my presentation. In the event of response, I am open to considering all options. You see, in the end I don’t think I am supposed to be keeping this knowledge privately. The world can benefit from this tremendously in education, research, health, business, politics, etc. So yes, eventually this will become public knowledge. It is a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’. What I do not know is what the road from A to B will look like. This process is of my concern. Let me explain.

The dilema

The opposing side is that technology will be used for unintended applications. Atomic bombs are the unintended consequence of Einstein's E=mc². The winner of the race to develop the atomic bomb won WWII. A critical aspect here is that the German actions caused a brain drain allowing the USA to win this race. One of those was Albert Einstein, a German jew who fled to the USA. After atomic bombs were exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki1, Albert Einstein stated that “the time has come now, when man must give up war. It is no longer rational to solve international problems by resorting to war." Well, currently they're at it again. Now I’m not Einstein, but this is the dilema. What good reason is there to make it public if you know what it is going to be used for? Maybe the time is not yet right. Please consider the following analysis of this conflict.

The solution

All things considered, if we want responsible AI, let's start by acting responsible ourselves. The current war will not be the last one, but at least let us make a proper start and save the day. We can set an example at this timepoint in history that our generation decided not to enter a new world war of destruction with no benefit to the people but instead to come together. If you like to know my wish, it is to gather a crew made up of men and women out of each wind direction like in the sage The Argo to emphasize that we're all in this boat together. This crew would be made up from nations where the people are the sovereign, that choose to take a neutral position in this war, respect international law, and restructure their debt in a way that leaves everyone whole as proposed by Martin Armstrong in his Solution. Now this may be wishful thinking. Are we already past the point of no return? Or is our society ready to deal with this responsibly? Only time can tell.