[Matrix-Q A.I. Nonary Intelligence] Blind spots of A.I. Design : Futurist Prediction on Machine Learning. From binary to nonary thinking

[Matrix-Q A.I. Nonary Intelligence]

Blind spots of A.I. Design : Futurist Prediction on Machine Learning, from binary to nonary thinking

[Perception and Training digital platform on Nonary Thinking and Nonary Intelligence by the Matrix-Q Research Institute]


  • The researcher review through a philosophical and futurist assessment A.I. Machine Learning, validation of data, binary thinking, nonary thinking, matrix thinking and Matrix-Q Intelligence.
  • Through examples on data generation and validation in relation to human phenomena, suggests the need of a new approach for machine learning and technology innovation, thanks for scientific research on human intelligence, human potential, stages of development and human species evolution.
  • The researcher describes new form of algorithms being developed at the Matrix-Q Research Institute for machine learning and A.I. design, based on nonary thinking, matrix-Q Intelligence, which are as well nature inspired, giving as example the algorithms being developed thanks to the discovery of a pattern of 36 cyphers generated by the Fibonacci sequence of numbers.

Through this presentation, article, the researcher introduces the reader to the following conclusions:

  • There is a stream of thought made available by nonary thinking that can unveil the blind spots of the trendy A.I. design of our modern culture tech. innovation.
  • It is necessary a futurist assessment of impact technology (and the source of the algorithms modern technology utilizes), will create in human culture, civilization and human evolution.
  • Studies on human evolution, human potential, education methods, human creativity, skills, leadership, effectiveness would become extremely more important for science, technology innovation and human society, culture.
  • Data validation methods, or algorithms for the identification or corrupted or not valid data, will become more important for A.I. in a very close future.
  • Understanding of the influence on perception has binary thinking may change the way technology and knowledge is being created and the possibilities for development that both of them make available for their users.
  • The Matrix-Q Research Institute is aiming for a new possibility for machine learning, deep learning algorithms creation based on nonary thinking and Matrix-Q Intelligence

By Luis Daniel Maldonado Fonken

Coach, Trainer. Developer of the Matrix-Q Assessment Tools, Matrix-Q Education Algorithms and Method, Holistic & Quantum Strategic Management Methods, Corporate Immunology Studies and Applications, PTƟ Primordial Mathematics, PTƟ Matrix-Q Artificial Intelligence, Nonary Thinking Tools & Methods and Gender Cocreativity & Business Inclusiveness System (business model)



After a brief review of A.I. trends in 2018, i have arrived to the following thinking process and statements:

  • Machine learning (A.I.) advancements depends on data assessment.
  • The data generated by humanity is the result of human behavior registered and interpreted by other humans, who have a certain level of human intelligence (and capacity of tangible application of that intelligence: skills – human potential, human stage of development)
  • There is so much not yet experienced nor created or explored in human potential, human capacity of tangible application of human intelligence: skills. Much humans may be able to do or create, or skills that can be developed, or capacity of the brain that could be used, we are not aware of yet.
  • There are new forms of human intelligence not experienced, discovered or fully studied yet, as for example Matrix-Quotient. [Matrix-Q Intelligence tests and models developed  by the Matrix-Q Research institute]
  • There is time and generational experience necessary for observing change,in the  human species intelligence, potential advancement through natural evolution. If we consider that in some years or centuries, through natural evolution (evolution influenced by nature and human phenomena)
  • The data generated by future super humans (which evolved through natural evolution) would be radically different than the one available now generated by human civilization 1200-2018 years of the christian age.
  • The impact A.I. designed within the years 2000-2050 [A.I.2K] will have on human civilization and culture, on human evolution, will be of a great magnitude. [ As natural evolution will eventually not take place any more, an evolution without influence or human hybridization with technology or artificially created human-accessories]
  • After A.I.2K the path of human natural evolution changed. What will humans become is not any more the outcome of natural events influencing humanity. But will be of social events and technology created by A.I. and by humans, and humans hybrids with technology and A.I. influencing humanity.



Would be those events and A.I. create a cage or a more broaden possibility for human evolution?

If we observe the creations of humanity along the christian age, and the data generated, what would A.I. learn about what means to be human, what humans does, can do or how ?

How A.I. applications would, in their pattern recognition, see or consider patterns of behavior of a non sustainable culture and civilizations (year 0 – year 2018 of the christian age) (see Sustainable development goals, united nations 2030) as those that define how humans do solve issues and create quality of living indicators and the necessary technology or knowledge for them to experience it (quality of living, wealth generation, life style ?)

These questions brought me to the following review of A.I. related ideas and trends, according to the results of my research. [ www.matrix-q.com ]

If a cluster of super humans would generate data utilized for a machine learning process. Why would be the process and outcome be relevant for A.I. designers ?

For example considering most of humanity have naturally reached and is able to profit from skills and intelligence level 3, then generate data level 3. But what kind of data would be generated by a cluster of humans in the same age or decade which have activated a human potential which is more advanced, we would say skills and intelligence level 963? And what would be able to learn the same A.I. with this data ?

In the Matrix-Q Scale of quantification of value of the human capital, the behavior, decisions, perceptions, judgements of value, strategies of more advanced humans in the score lines on human potential, human archetypes, which are beyond the standard human behavior class 3, would in simple terms mean more “out of the box” humans, with an intelligence and capacity to generate, process and manage more complex advanced systems, data, information, experiences, relationships, society, family, decisions or path for their life, at easy; then we can predict the type of data generated by such of cluster of humans would be different in quality and quantity. [ Matrix-Q A.I. & C.G.E. Culture Generation Engine ]

The type of data necessary for that particular cluster of humans would be different, the activities they would engage into and focus on, give value to, would be also different, the type of A.I. they would generate data for, through their daily life, business, process, would be also different.

As machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, in general modern most trendy approach for A.I. is based on data analysis, and as A.I. processing of that data (by identifying more complex patterns along a learning process – machine learning), would learn how to and create new alternative self-programming rules, that would help itself be more efficient into accomplishing a wishing task the A.I. has been designed for.

As described above, machine learning seems to be the panacea of A.I. and an important jump into the art of design and understanding of the potential A.I. has and predict even powerful applications and innovations to come.

I think, the reader may understand, if my words have been clear enough to communicate my message, that the data studied, has been generated by humans on an evolutionary process.

Thanks to a natural evolutionary process we would eventually reach a more advanced human possibility, and there for be capable to generate new forms or qualities, of data. But we do not know how long, under which conditions or which types of experiences would be necessary for the human species to evolve naturally just by experiencing its normal daily life, into more advanced humans; how many generations such a process could mean ?

It means, that such of a development stage, seems to be not feasible in one life, and also not monetize-able. ( my intention with this presentation is to suggest that this general idea is not true, to suggest that it is possible within one life to advance, activate human potential, creativity and intelligence, skills, and be capable of generated other quality of data A.I. could learn from, so that our future as humans, a future enhanced or augmented by A.I.s would be of a more advanced quality).

As well we are aware that even by utilizing the most advanced education methods, which eventually could speed up the process of discovery, activation or exploration of human potential, there is, or have been, since such methods are available for human kind, a very little percent of individuals that reached through them any form of evolutionary advancement, and the data generated through their lives, have eventually not been registered properly or is non existent, but only as stories, legends or anecdotes, or biographies; which have not been thought to become sources of data to be used for, for example, modern machine learning.



The year 2016 and 2017 of my sabbatical, dedicated to research and publication, i have intensively focus and remark in my publications and exchange with the scientific community online, on the importance of perception and matrix-thinking for scientific research.

At this point in time, already in 2018, i would be able to say that if for example the health industry would have focused efforts of research and collection of data from healthy individuals and their performance and not only in unhealthy cases, the studies on immunology, for example, would have been more advanced today, and we would have more data able to help us understand properly and precisely the current human immune system and eventually its evolutionary or transformation process, if such of a process meant something for the current “intelligence” operating behind the immune system.

For example, before an intrusive sickness is experienced by an organism, one that is capable to generate atrophy of certain human functions, or skills; by considering its source a virus for example, that could be endemic or a human population and impact it generation by generation in such a way, that the atrophy would become permanent and collective, reaching all individuals of the species and their future generations at a certain point in time.

Now consider for this story that when this process took place were no doctors and no records of human skills or conditions. Now for the purpose of a clear example of the idea i wish to communicate, consider that 44000 years later a new society intents to understand the immune system, and perceive in the atrophy a reference for normal healthy behavior ? taking for sickness the still remanent intent of the immune system to correct the atrophy, and developing medicines and therapies that induce in the human complex life sustaining system its return to the atrophy and avoidance of the process necessary for its correction. Why, simple: the perspective was not there. Instead of helping the immune system correct the atrophy the health professionals took the atrophy as a healthy normal always there condition that only sickness would alter. So when a sickness intent or seems to force the change of the atrophy, the health practitioners consider it to be an attack to the immune system.

In the example above, the issue is data not known, not accessible, not possible to be generated, unless a time reversible process of data generation, a simulation (which has not been created so far i know) that would help us know how the most advanced health condition of human beings along its whole time line of evolutionary process would have been in terms of tissues, functions, skills, cognitive abilities and others.

In the same approach, according to my studies and the conclusions i have arrived through the research and test trials of the knowledge achieved and methods developed [ www.matrix-q.com ], i am certain, human advanced stages of development can be reached in one single life time, and collectively speaking in few generations, which, would give us the possibility to study human intelligence, skills, behavior, perception, judgements of value, decision making skills, with completely new lenses.

By the activation of this human potential as my research results suggests, we would be able to explore as well on dormant skills available and the understanding that under other living conditions and challenges humans in the past would have had other skills, advanced, that today are necessary and not available.

What i am trying to communicate in this presentation/article, is that the current data available has been generated by one western culture civilization within the last 3000 years; that there tools utilized for data perception, interpretation, organization, management are based only in binary (dual perception) based computing, and mostly are focus on learning process based on pattern recognition. Patterns generated by an emerging global human civilization, culture, created by humans of a certain mix of levels of intelligence, stages of development, skills, which belong in general to a stage of development of the natural human evolution.

Then what would a modern A.I. engine will learn and create, as result, will be within the frame of creative possibilities under the limits of the stage of development achieved by the collective or innovative modern western global culture, as other type of data does not exist yet, is not available or has not been made available.

Would time reversible algorithms applied through A.I. that study human history data help us reach out to human stages of development, evolutionary time line, to understand where we come from, and the series and sequence of events that made us ? [ Reference A.I. Engine being designed by the Matrix-Q Research Institute on the Primordial Culture Research Project, Primordial Culture related articles ]



The impact A.I. is having or about to have on human society, culture, civilization development is of such of a magnitude that it will influence by all means human evolution.

There is a great chance that human hybridization with A.I. and machines would become trendy, and according to market development eventually accessible.

My prediction is that there is also a great deal of a chance that A.I. created with the data available, will condition human evolution, limiting it, within the frame of data generated in the last 3000 years or worse to the ability of the individuals that registered data, and did for human events and history interpretation and register.

The key i perceive and predict will be for this means of change will be the understanding of the nature of data and the relativity of its value but the powerful transformational impact, generated by its use, on human individuals, society, culture, civilization and finally human evolution.


DATA VALIDATION 101 – Story Telling

Validation of data is extremely important for ICT. One of the first lessons learned by ICT professionals is that if data is corrupted, or not valid, the programs that utilize such of a data will be also generate a not valid outcome.

But who or which are the indicators and how is the assessment done in order to decide if any data is valid or not ?

For example: in a story told about human challenges along years 12000 before the christian age, a story written in the years of Athens cultural advancement, it was told that gods saved a kingdom from famine, when they brought water to the sky again, after some favors the local priests and kings did for them at their temples.

In our current times the perception or idea of a god doing such kind of thing would be taken as ridicules and the data will be considered as trivia, legend without objective information, for the mean of for example weather change, rain or human potential or even history. As our perception in 2018 is condition by all that is known and accepted as valid in 2018.

… the story continues…

But in the year 50000 after the christian era, through human nano tech advancement and wave generation capable nano engines, individuals may have the capacity to make the sky rain. If such of a technology integrated in the human body would be possible, and not perceived by the human eye of year 2018, then, in the year 50000 the story of the gods that make rain would become intriguing. Not any more data that isnt valid, but eventually suggests that there is a set of references that are missing about it, for example: who were those gods ?

Now consider an alternative time line in which there isnt nano tech or weather manipulation technology the one that in the year 50000 gives the power to individuals to manipulate weather but other form of human natural evolution that took place “naturally” as for example: the ability to alter or manipulate human magnetic fields, galvanic current,  through thought, visualization, emotion or sound generated by the body, and as a result alter human natural system and shift it into the configuration of a generator of enough power that has the ability to influence weather under certain particular conditions, like for example only when temperatures and humidity vary within a particular range. Consider that such of an advancement has been reached through education of human emotions, body and mind, by exploring human potential; or eventually through a mutation with unknown sources or registered causes.

In this second case, the validity of the data 12000 (before christian age), regarding human capacity to make rain, would be even more possible.

(For this second alternative time line the modern science and technology available in 50000 (after christian age) case 1, would not have been the cause for such of an event as of making rain fall but the natural human skills – case 2, time line 2 described above).

Notice that within the records of studies of tribes and cultures available in 2018,  studies for which still the modern culture researcher  range of perception or sensory experience could be verified or validated some how, explained. Or eventually those records of a close past between 1000 and 2018 years of the christian calendar. For which several cases of individuals that claim can make rain have been registered, and eventually some of them verified. Those individuals have been considered saints, enlightened, magicians, or medicine men for their tribes or circles of belief or cultures, as well as unexplained strange cases by science.

It means that today, the idea that somebody in the year 12000 before the christian age did make rain, is plausible, and such of data would be valid.

Even that for the known modern science studies, so far i know, there is no scientific validation of such of a skill as possible for any human being born in our century. Apparently certain linkage with specific cultures, beliefs systems appears as a pattern in those cases. Yet, as i said, for the purpose of this example created in order to advance, expand our perception, the standard public references on those cases would be a good source to refer to.

So at the year 2018 we find a conflict, lacking scientific studies of natural human potential and strange references to cases in not so far away in time or locations, human history and events, people that claimed somebody or themselves made rain, and perception of individuals that are certain as for their own knowledge that such of a skill would be possible to be developed by modern humans today.

In this simple case, that may not be relevant for the industry purposes of A.I. design and machine learning, deep learning, in the year 2018, there exist data that can be valid or not valid, according to the perception of the cluster of scientists or users that study it or would like to use it.


BINARY THINKING, HUMAN PERCEIVED AS COMPLEX SYSTEM – Story telling on gender equality and sexuality

It is not a secret that modern computing has passed through various stages of development and a great amount of theories, methods and systems have create or not a trendy or popular list of events and brands appreciated or preferred by consumers and producers.

Certainly it is not as a result of a scientific agreement that one company or another, one product or another, will be bought more or less, in a particular market.

Binary thinking (the description of all phenomena, human, natural, artificial, through 0 and 1, yes and no, true and false) is the common accepted and mostly used standard in terms of modern computing and actually for a popular market the mostly used.

But how binary thinking affects our perception ? and why the answer of this question is relevant for A.I. designers ?

A good example can be told in relation to the field of gender.

SDG2030 (Sustainable development goals) by united nations has set gender equality as one if the SD Goals. [ Ref: http://sdg.luisdanielmaldonadofonken.info]

The idea of gender equality suggests gender non equality. As one in opposition to the other one. From a culture in which the question was: “is it a man, yes or not” into a culture in which the question is “is it a man or a woman? any of both is good”. Binary thinking shifted from generating a question in which you ask: is that a zero or not ? into another question which asks: is that a zero or a one. Giving the universe of binary thinking is only zero and one, there is indeed not much of a change experienced by the change of the question.

On the other hand, we are aware that not only in modern, but as well in ancient human cultures and civilizations, many other cyphers did exist, as for representation of gender. Some of the modern GLBTQ networks did add the S at the end of the algorithm of human generation meaning straight (including 0 and 1) to the their other respective alternatives. [GLBTQ Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transsexual Queer]

But how do you describe the reality of gender, sexual preferences, sexual identities, gender identities, gender expressions ? how many numbers of zeros and ones would you combine together for the description of a man or a woman?

  • Man, Straight: 11111111
  • Woman Straight: 00000000
  • and the other alternatives in between.
  • For example: Gay or lesbian: 11110000
    But is that it? did we describe a gay or lesbian in zeros and ones ?
    are both the same ? also the bisexual, transgender and any other ?

and this is where binary thinking increases in the number of cyphers necessary for data description, for example:

  • 11110000 .11 would be gay
  • 11110000 .00 would be lesbian
  • 11110000 .10 transgender into women
  • 11110000 .01 transgender into men

and so on…

If we intent to study human society from another perspective, family for example, one of the DNA Generation Algorithms based tools developed in ancient times will give us another idea of gender: The I Ching, through relationships within a family tree. [ Reference: I Ching Theta – Nonary Thinking vs I Ching Binary Thinking comparative research study by the Matrix-Q Research Institute]

  • 1111 Father
  • 0000 Mother
  • 1110 First Son
  • 0001 First Daughter
  • 1100 Second Son
  • 0011 Second Daughter
  • 1000 Third Son
  • 0111 Third Daughter

obviously the idea of family in the past was eventually associated to the increasing of a crew, with great risks and little chances of survival, which would eventually be strategically more effective, having more children, according to industry: farm restaurant, merchant, business, management of wealth of a royal family.

While in the traditional or modern Chinese family, the roles where given assuming straight (S) nature of their biological character or was never mention the sexual identities or preferences of the family members

In our modern western culture, the sexual identity, “gender” needs to be mentioned, as for the inclusive approach we wish to create for those that have chosen or prefer other options of self-expression, sexual preferences, parenting or love relationships.

Another example of binary thinking is related to the field of fertility risk. When the general knowledge is that the woman has a set of fertile days, and for those days would be ideal, in case of not wishing pregnancy, to avoid sexual intercourse or to use a kind of method that reduces the risk. If not used a condom for a method, the presence of semen before fertility days in the vagina or cervix may be cause of pregnancy. So the question is not limited to zero or one, true or false, regarding if is there semen along fertile days or not, in the vigina or cervix? but a bit more complex than it, according to case of men and woman on when, since when and how long have been; as well as from whom the semen is and if its capacity of survival is long enough or not as for a conception and fertilization.

If pregnancy takes place and an abortion is induced or enforced, the fact that there is no pregnancy (biologically) it means : value of pregnancy = zero (false), it does not mean that the woman and the couple of parents that decided for abortion will have not experienced in certain extend (according their sensibility and vulnerability and self-awareness skills, which vary according to case) a process in which their emotions, life path, perception, feelings, self-worth, would have been impacted. Even if pregnancy value = zero, the reality of human holistic nature is that after abortion the pregnancy value = 01, as there is an impact registered in the life of the individuals that made the choice of abortion even the pregancy isnt there any more in biological terms, in the psyche and emotions of the individuals is. Yet the level of impact, length of time the impact or trauma is present in the parents may vary from case to case, and therapy to therapy if any applied.

In relation to the same field, for the study of sexual education, consent is one of the most important topics to learn. When and how a love partner or sexual partner may agree or decide the other one does consent into the sexual experience. Perception and capacity of reading signals, channels of communication is not enough. The fact that a woman or man enjoy a sexual experience does not imply consent. Again consent value = 1 <> sexual experience enjoyment value = 1. How can a pattern recognition tool of an A.I. engine recognize in human body, sound, emotions, behavior, self expressions of an individual enjoying a sexual experience if there was or is consent ?

Another example of a more elaborated complexity: A CEO contracts an employee, assistant, which is highly efficient and along the first season of working together inspires trust and vulnerability in the CEO. Along the second season, the assistant suggests through some channels of communication some openness for intimacy. The CEO may have developed feelings or not, or be sexually attracted or not. A series of events bring both into a sexual experience of a relative important level of intimacy and closeness. For this story the CEO may be a man or a woman, and may have or shared information with the assistant for which the assistant had not the necessary clearance level, have distracted him/her self from the CEO tasks and track of priorities along daily business as for the process of interaction with the assistant, as well effectiveness has been reduced or placed in jeopardy. At the third season of the story the CEO or the assistant has asked HHRR for compensation and settlement, or to the court as for a “sexual harassment claim “, to be brought to the court by the assistant or by the CEO. All in all, the facts are not clear or the answer to the question of: sexual harassment value = 1 (yes, true) or 0 (no, false) ?

The story may unfold in the direction of the facts and possible verification of facts, proofs, of a sexual harassment. The CEO or the assistant, any of them that started the claim in the court, may win or not. Mostly protection will be given to women, in most of the western policies. While the perception of rights, behavior and decision making will vary from culture to culture, so how the law is applied.

An alternative version of the story, the time line 02: in which the victim is perceived as the CEO when police realizes there is an criminal agency offering services of industry spy and sabotage by deceiving HHRR of corporate and sending prepared and qualified assistants of management to apply for CEO or Management Assistants, and create as their task a “sexual harassment” situation as described above, an event which will be utilized for the creation of a media issue, a process in the court, distract CEOs from its track on effectiveness and leadership, and leverage materials to be used for extortion.

Then the court that did decide, for example in favor of the woman assistant in the time line 01 may have make a mistake, and the mistake was eventually verified some year later when police identified the assistant as employee of the criminal agency describe above. A result that helped police and human resources identify a crime, and create a new policy, but which did not change the damage generated by the events on the company the CEO was leading or in the life of the CEO.

If for  this alternative ending of the story, (time line 02) the first assessment of the court in the case the assistant was a woman, as that the sexual harassment value = 1 (true) there for the CEO was punished with a penalty decided by the judge. But years later the same assistant and a cluster of other individuals were identified by police, as agents of crime, dedicated to industry spy and sabotage tasks, by leverage, fabricating the circumstance that would be perceived as “sexual harassment”. As result the sexual harassment value changed from = 1 (true) to 0 (false).

In a more extreme example on gender and sexuality issues, lets describe the story of a new couple, they recently know each other and are facing the first sexual experience. The woman the day after it went to police and did file sexual abuse. The man was sent to court. The man claims did not abuse her because there was consent. The woman say: there was at the beginning but as he started having sex with her in a way she did not prefer later on, then the woman felt abused and decided to bring the man to the court for that reason.  The judge verified that both of them did not hear from each other any sign or message that would have change the outcome of their sexual experience: the women did not communicate or sign clearly to the man that she did not prefer to have sex with him any more or that she disliked the experience and felt abused or the man did not recognize in any of her intents of communication such of a message. On the other side the man explained that she was expressing herself as she liked it, the sexual experience, and then he had no reason to ask, verify if she still does. So the man claims to be not guilty. For the purpose of our story the judge came to the following conclusion: As no one of both was capable to communicate, and for both of them now the damage in her case has been described as an experience of abuse, and on his case as a damage of his image as for the public media information shared on the events, the judge have decided that:  both of them will need to be in jail for a number of days, and or pay a penalty of a certain amount of money, and take a course in field sexuality and consent, communication and self-expression and therapy, and image coaching, in order to reintegrate themselves to society. The reason of this conclusion in terms of gender equality is that both of them together created the event of abuse, according to the judge perception.

For the story above, if that story would be true, and eventually is or would be in modern courts informed on gender equality and new ideas on capacity of responsible decision making and communication along sexual experiences, media and public opinion would for sure show disagreement with the decision of the judge.

Why i am giving these examples, one on gender, self-expression, choice, other on biology and emotional process, and agreement on consent to sexual experiences and sexual harassment, or sexual abuse ? How are those relevant for A.I. design ? machine learning, deep learning ?

The reality of human phenomena is a lot more complex that zero and one, man and woman, yes and not, false or true, i like it and i do not like it.

Binary data validation seems to have many blind spots, in relation to data generated by human phenomena, as for the complexity human phenomena represents. Therefor the design of modern A.I. which works on data generated by human phenomena should take in consideration the need of designing methods for data red, validation, generation, perception, register and management or actualization, update of their value or validity.
BINARY THINKING, HUMAN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT – Story telling on human skills and Matrix-Q Intelligence

Another list of set of examples that show the limitations of binary thinking can be sourced out of mechanical, emotional, cognitive skills.

For example: three different clusters of people, (named A, B & C) which evolved as clans or communities, living in 3 geo locations away from each other and never related or interacted with each other.

The three of them survival was based on the industry of rice. From working on the fields as farmers, to collecting and packing the rice and producing all sorts of rice products (industry) and commercializing it (business strategic management) or educating the individuals to engage into the tasks necessary, described before (education).

The three of them generated data through the process of learning the business along the last 30 years. The same A.I, with a machine learning algorithm did analyze the data,  of each of them, as for purpose of process effectiveness improvement with A.I.. The results generated by the same algorithm were different as the data read was different. [ But how different ?].

One of the reasons may be that skills, or culture or process learned in the last 30 years by each of them were different.

But as well it could be that the process, strategy, knowledge developed by the cluster A was based on the a foundation collective human intelligence with the sign of a stage of development, human evolutionary stage (A). Which generated data, the A.I. learned with, producing a result “A”.

A <> B <> C

for the purpose of this example the human potential, intelligence, skills, stage of development of A <> B <> C.

But for the three cases, the effectiveness of their industries, economies, increased, as well as wealth generation in their respective kingdoms increased, results for which the three kingdoms are satisfied with their A.I.s. and have developed no interest at all for the A.I. created by other cultures, or the other 2 countries.

Now let me change some how the story with the following information:

  • Cluster A, chrono-located in the year 800 BC
  • Cluster B, chrono-located in the year 2018 AC
  • Cluster C, chrono-located in the year 3000 AC

or the following new setting

Cluster A, B & C chrono-located in year 3000 of the christian age.


  • Cluster A, Matrix-Q Intelligence Level 3
  • Cluster B, Matrix-Q Intelligence Level 36
  • Cluster C, Matrix-Q Intelligence Level 369

How these references above described suggest a meaning change necessary for the understanding of data: when the events took place and how was the development of humanity at that time, and which level of intelligence the individuals or collective had, stage of development?

Which will be the benefits of study the differences between both A.I., their machine (deep) learning process, and of the data read by their algorithms, and how that data was generated, perceived, interpreted, registered ?

[Matrix-Quotient of intelligence sign the individual or collective ability to solve challenges by approaching them from several perspectives simultaneously. Matrix-Q Intelligence tests, score lines, score cards and models have been created and studied by the Matrix-Q Research Institute, research and innovation by the researcher, based on nature inspired models, nonary thinking, matrix thinking.]

Which is the DATA that A.I. is now utilizing for the purpose of machine learning, and how this data has been generated and validated ?

The question above is more important for our future, as global civilization and human species, than for our current industrial and business ideas on A.I. benefits for human kind and the potential wealth this new form of A.I. will generate.

The Matrix-Q Research Institute has developed through the study of nature principles, laws, cycles, rhythms, human potential (stages of development) and nature inspired knowledge and technology of ancient cultures and civilizations, a series of tools (Matrix-Q Assessment Tools) which are of nonary nature, that can be utilized for data reading, interpretation and generation.

Which means that the Matrix-Q Research Institute is aiming for a new possibility for machine learning, deep learning algorithms creation.

After the discovery of a pattern of 12,24 and 36 cyphers within Fibonacci Sequence, by translating each fibonacci number into a cypher, by utilizing the PSL.2018 method, the researcher has arrived to a conclusion, and validated an hypothesis, on nature inspired algorithms simplicity and complexity, and the possibility to use them in a more accurate modality, through nonary computing, as for A.I. algorithms design.

Nonary thinking is the next stage of the Matrix-Q Research Institute, which is an education platform, based on nonary thinking, which will provide e-learning materials that will focus on how nonary thinking can help its users notice their blind spots, the box in which their live, the universe that surrounds it, and perceive, think, do, decide, create out of the box.

In this new platform several applications based on nonary thinking will be discussed. For example: The nature inspired business model, or the gender cocreativity based inclusive business model, or the Fibonacci Pattern based algorithms for business, as well as the Matrix-Q Education method (Matrix-Q Intelligence enhancement focus) and a series of methods dedicated to advance leadership, skills, self-management and human potential ( The 9 Primordial Arts ).


  • There is a stream of thought made available by nonary thinking that can unveil the blind spots of the trendy A.I. design of our modern culture tech. innovation.
  • It is necessary a futurist assessment of impact technology (and the source of the algorithms modern technology utilizes), will create in human culture, civilization and human evolution.
  • Studies on human evolution, human potential, education methods, human creativity, skills, leadership, effectiveness would become extremely more important for science, technology innovation and human society, culture.
  • Data validation methods, or algorithms for the identification or corrupted or not valid data, will become more important for A.I. in a very close future.
  • Understanding of the influence on perception has binary thinking may change the way technology and knowledge is being created and the possibilities for development that both of them make available for their users.
  • The Matrix-Q Research Institute is aiming for a new possibility for machine learning, deep learning algorithms creation based on nonary thinking and Matrix-Q Intelligence