Unicist Conceptual Design

Print Friendly

Text to Speech avaiable at the bottom

 The Structure of Unicist Conceptual Design.

The development of projects, systems or any kind of solutions in adaptive environments requires managing the concepts involved in order to ensure the results to be obtained. The conceptual design ensures the functionality of a solution.

Thus, unicist conceptual design becomes necessary to ensure results in adaptive environments by managing the fundamentals of the solutions, defining the necessary functions that are integrated as a unified field and ending with the definition of a dynamic process architecture.

This process includes the definition of roles, business objects and maximal and minimum synchronic actions to ensure the achievement of results.

Unicist Conceptual Design

The unicist approach to human behavior is based on the fact that human actions are driven by the concepts they have. Therefore, any time an individual becomes influenced, the “Conceptual Short-Term Memory” becomes activated to apprehend the “gist” of the message.

The purpose of conceptual design is to define the process architecture of the solution. To make this solution possible, it is necessary to be able to emulate it in mind.

Emulating in mind requires envisioning the final picture of the process and the results that will be achieved. This requires having the knowledge of the fundamentals of the process and a solution thinking approach that allows building the solution.

The emulation of the solution becomes possible if the conceptual knowledge of the solution is available.

The conceptual knowledge requires managing the ontogenetic map that defines the functionality of the concept that drives the solution.

Thus conceptual design implies integrating the emulation of the solution and the conceptual knowledge of the process to build the process architecture.

The Ontogenetic Algorithm of Conceptual Design.

The Guiding Idea.

The driver of conceptual design is the need of a functional solution. The existence of this driver requires having an empathic relationship with the solution. The empathic relationship with the solution is the essential driver of conceptual design while the functional solution is the “functional driver”.

When the driver is given, it is necessary to be able to manage the ambiguity of complex systems integrating processes and objects to fulfill the objective of developing a solution.

This requires integrating the triadic structure that is implicit in the operational dualistic approach of building processes and objects. For this purpose, it is necessary to manage ambiguous language to integrate the apparent contradiction between processes and objects.

Evident examples of the need of ambiguous language is the integration of the concept of yin and yang, maximal and minimum strategies, active principles and energy conservation principles, processes and objects.

It has to be considered that ambiguous language is necessary to apprehend the integration of the triadic approach of nature and concepts.

To ensure the functionality of the definitions of the processes and objects it is necessary to define which will be the destructive tests that need to be done.

The Basics of Conceptual Design.

The empathic capacity and the use of ambiguous language are basic to approach conceptual design. An individual can only develop conceptual design processes of entities where s/he has the necessary capacity to deal with the triadic structure of the concept of a solution.

Unicist Conceptual DesignThe approach to concepts requires managing the operational contradiction between maximal and minimum strategies by managing the ambiguity of their integration.

The Maximal Strategy.

The purpose of the maximal strategies is driven by solution thinking. Solution thinking is an approach to reality based on a conceptual solution an individual has in the specific field of the problem that is being solved or in a homologous field that can be used as a benchmark.

This approach can work as a pre-conceptual approach to reality that is driven by stagnated prejudices or can work as an adaptive conceptual approach driven by the capacity of adapting to the environment and the solution that is being built. Pre-conceptual approaches build utopias, while adaptive approaches expand the boundaries of a given activity.

The adaptive approach to conceptual design requires approaching reality using a backward chaining thinking process. This process requires emulating the final solution in mind and building the process from the end to the beginning. The backward chaining thinking process is necessary to manage the PERT (project evaluation and review technique) of C.P.M. (Critical Path Method) processes.

On the other hand, it has to be considered that the GANTT method is based on a forward chaining thinking process, which builds the solution based on the addition of tasks. The backward chaining thinking requires having the “unified field” of the solution in mind in order to have always an alternative action that ensures the achievement of the results.

The backward chaining thinking process requires using an adaptive project management process that includes the use of plans A, B, C and D in order to ensure the achievement of results.

When this backward chaining thinking approach has been integrated with the adaptive project management model, there is a need to confirm the knowledge of the fundamentals of the specific environment.

The fundamental knowledge requires having sound knowledge and successful experiences in the specific field of action or in homologous fields.

The knowledge of the fundamentals is the catalyst of the process of ensuring the functionality of the conceptual solution of the problem.

The paradox is that it is a catalyst when there is a true valid knowledge but an inhibitor if the fundamentals are approached using rationalistic, subjective or any other fallacious approaches.

The maximal strategy expands the boundaries when the solution thinking allows emulating a solution in mind integrating the backward chaining thinking with the knowledge of the fundamentals.

When the emulation of the solution has been achieved, it is time to develop the minimum strategy, which requires confirming the conceptual knowledge that underlies.

The Minimum Strategy.

The minimum strategy of a conceptual design process is to ensure the conceptual solution of the problem that is being managed. The conceptual solution is given by the functionality of the conceptual structure of the entity that is being designed. The first step is to know the essential structure of the concept, which defines the “unified field” of the entity.

With the unified field in mind, it is necessary to access the ontogenetic map of the essential concept. The ontogenetic map implies the description of the essential fundamentals following the laws of complementation and supplementation following the evolution cycle.

The ontogenetic map defines the ontogenetic algorithm to develop the conceptual design of the solution. Each of the fundamentals that integrates the ontogenetic map works as an extrinsic object when it deals with the attributes of the entity or as a behavioral object when it deals with the approach to the external entity.

This ontogenetic map is in fact a knowledge object that defines the structure of the “unified field” that needs to be managed when developing the conceptual design. The risk of this knowledge is that it might be fallacious.

Therefore, the next step is to develop the necessary destructive tests to prove the limits of the validity of the knowledge.

The Minimum Strategy is sustained by a Learning Process.

Unless the ontogenetic map is already installed in the long-term memory of an individual, the use of destructive tests of knowledge unavoidably drive to a learning process. These learning processes require following the stages of the learning of complexity management.

These destructive tests of knowledge are the entropy inhibitor of conceptual design. It avoids accessing a complex problem with hypothetical ideas that generate no results. This stage finishes when the knowledge demonstrates its functionality to apprehend the unified field of the solution that is being designed.

Thus a conceptual solution can be built in order to provide the necessary complement to complete the process architecture.

The Conceptual Design of the Functional Solution.

The conceptual design of the functional solution is based on the integration of the emulation of the solution in the mind of the designer that drives the maximal strategy and the conceptual solution that drives the minimum strategy.

It has to be considered that the final purpose of the conceptual design is to build a solution in a complex environment.

This requires defining the processes and objects that will be used, making the necessary destructive tests of the processes to achieve a functional solution, which is used as the input for the design of the complex system.

Complex system building requires necessarily having a strategy to manage the feedback from the environment and the bi-univocal relationship among its components.

Therefore, the context of conceptual design is given by its integration with the purpose, which is the building of a complex system and the strategy that is needed to organize growth.

It needs to be clarified that a complex system cannot be transformed into an operational system with univocal cause-effect relationships. It remains complex.

What needs to be done is to develop simple tasks that can be managed by anyone in order to develop the necessary actions to produce results while the complexity is managed at a superior level.

Levels of Conceptual Design.

Four levels of conceptual design have been discovered:

Level 1. – Guiding Idea: that has the generic guiding idea of what is being designed.

Level 2. – Logical Design: that has the logical design of the process.

Level 3. – Objects Design: that deals with the design of specific objects.

Level 4. – Process Design: that manages the unified field of the solution.

Level 1: Guiding Idea.

Unicist Conceptual DesignThis level of conceptual design is based on the rational knowledge of the conceptual solution and the understanding of the ontogenetic map that allows apprehending the metaphors that are used to categorize the design of the solution.

This level of knowledge requires having operational experience in the field of action of the solution without having the knowledge of the unified field that is being managed.

Level 2: Logical Design.

This level includes the preceding level and includes the capacity of managing the complete structure of the conceptual knowledge of the unified field of the solution.

It is based on having the capacity to manage the unified field of knowledge based on integrating it in reasonable and understandable terms as a sort of “semantic network” of interrelated concepts that need to produce a predefined result.

This level of design provides conceptual solutions that are controlled making the destructive tests of these solutions. It requires being able to apprehend the triadic structure of concepts.

This implies being able to manage the ambiguity of the conceptual structure, which includes, on the one hand, a maxima strategy and, on the other hand, an operational contradictory minimum strategy.

Level 3: Objects Design.

This level includes the preceding level and includes the capacity of emulating in mind some of the objects that integrate the final solution.

On the one hand, Objects design requires having the necessary empathy with the functions that need to be built as objects and with the users of these objects.

On the other hand, the design of objects deals with the functional solutions, which requires emulating the solution in mind and developing a backward-chaining process to define the problem that needs to be solved.

This process has to be recycled until the final solution has been achieved or has been replaced by a solution of a superior level.

The contradictions that will be found in these processes need to be approached by upgrading to a superior level where these contradictions are integrating in a unified field.

The objects design is based on the knowledge of the fundamentals of the objects and the knowledge of the purpose to be achieved by the entire system.

Level 4: Process Design.

This level includes the preceding level and requires being able to integrate the interdependent objects that have bi-univocal influence using a double dialectical approach.

This level allows integrating the maximal and minimum strategy of each object in order to ensure the achievement of the results.

The process is based on emulating the dynamics of the solution in mind in order to be able to develop adaptive solutions and manage the influence of the environment.

The process requires being able to manage the unified field of the entire system and its dynamics, which requires developing the necessary destructive tests of the processes in order to ensure the functionality.

The final functional solution needs to have a maximal strategy to expand the boundaries of the system and a minimum strategy to ensure its survival.

There has to exist an extreme level of empathy and ambiguity management, because a complex system is a composite object itself where all the ambiguous aspects of the objects and processes that integrate it need to be structured as functional conjunctions.

 

Generating Value in Adaptive Environments.

The unicist conceptual design is necessary to ensure the production of results in adaptive environments. This conceptual design implies having the knowledge of the concepts of reality.

FREE DOWNLOAD - Click on the image to download

The discovery that human actions are driven by the concepts people have, established a new stage in the understanding and influence of individual, institutional and social behavior. The paradigm shift in sciences that was introduced by the Unicist Theory, which is applied to individual, institutional and social behavior, is based on the discovery that human actions are driven by the concepts that individuals have.

It is necessary to acknowledge that concepts define the nature of things. These concepts are built in “mind” using the “ontointelligence”, which is the intelligence to apprehend the nature of things and is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the strategic intelligence and the type of logical thought.

People who intend to assume the responsibility for the results of their actions need to be aware of the concepts of what they are doing. The unicist conceptual design is the methodology that allows transforming the knowledge of the nature of things into processes to make things happen.

It is necessary to be aware of the concept of a given reality in order to be able to assume the responsibility for producing results in adaptive environments. Those who cannot emulate the structure of concepts can only assume the responsibility of operational tasks or use their preconcepts to develop an activity.

The discovery of the behavioral objects explained how concepts guide conscious actions. They integrate the available data in the long-term memory, which includes the semantic, episodic and procedural memory. This explained that the capacity to emulate in “mind” the external reality depends on the level of conceptualization of an individual.

Academic Committee.

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

  Click to listen highlighted text!  The Structure of Unicist Conceptual Design. The development of projects, systems or any kind of solutions in adaptive environments requires managing the concepts involved in order to ensure the results to be obtained. The conceptual design ensures the functionality of a solution. Thus, unicist conceptual design becomes necessary to ensure results in adaptive environments by managing the fundamentals of the solutions, defining the necessary functions that are integrated as a unified field and ending with the definition of a dynamic process architecture. This process includes the definition of roles, business objects and maximal and minimum synchronic actions to ensure the achievement of results. The unicist approach to human behavior is based on the fact that human actions are driven by the concepts they have. Therefore, any time an individual becomes influenced, the “Conceptual Short-Term Memory” becomes activated to apprehend the “gist” of the message. The purpose of conceptual design is to define the process architecture of the solution. To make this solution possible, it is necessary to be able to emulate it in mind. Emulating in mind requires envisioning the final picture of the process and the results that will be achieved. This requires having the knowledge of the fundamentals of the process and a solution thinking approach that allows building the solution. The emulation of the solution becomes possible if the conceptual knowledge of the solution is available. The conceptual knowledge requires managing the ontogenetic map that defines the functionality of the concept that drives the solution. Thus conceptual design implies integrating the emulation of the solution and the conceptual knowledge of the process to build the process architecture. The Ontogenetic Algorithm of Conceptual Design. The Guiding Idea. The driver of conceptual design is the need of a functional solution. The existence of this driver requires having an empathic relationship with the solution. The empathic relationship with the solution is the essential driver of conceptual design while the functional solution is the “functional driver”. When the driver is given, it is necessary to be able to manage the ambiguity of complex systems integrating processes and objects to fulfill the objective of developing a solution. This requires integrating the triadic structure that is implicit in the operational dualistic approach of building processes and objects. For this purpose, it is necessary to manage ambiguous language to integrate the apparent contradiction between processes and objects. Evident examples of the need of ambiguous language is the integration of the concept of yin and yang, maximal and minimum strategies, active principles and energy conservation principles, processes and objects. It has to be considered that ambiguous language is necessary to apprehend the integration of the triadic approach of nature and concepts. To ensure the functionality of the definitions of the processes and objects it is necessary to define which will be the destructive tests that need to be done. The Basics of Conceptual Design. The empathic capacity and the use of ambiguous language are basic to approach conceptual design. An individual can only develop conceptual design processes of entities where s/he has the necessary capacity to deal with the triadic structure of the concept of a solution. The approach to concepts requires managing the operational contradiction between maximal and minimum strategies by managing the ambiguity of their integration. The Maximal Strategy. The purpose of the maximal strategies is driven by solution thinking. Solution thinking is an approach to reality based on a conceptual solution an individual has in the specific field of the problem that is being solved or in a homologous field that can be used as a benchmark. This approach can work as a pre-conceptual approach to reality that is driven by stagnated prejudices or can work as an adaptive conceptual approach driven by the capacity of adapting to the environment and the solution that is being built. Pre-conceptual approaches build utopias, while adaptive approaches expand the boundaries of a given activity. The adaptive approach to conceptual design requires approaching reality using a backward chaining thinking process. This process requires emulating the final solution in mind and building the process from the end to the beginning. The backward chaining thinking process is necessary to manage the PERT (project evaluation and review technique) of C.P.M. (Critical Path Method) processes. On the other hand, it has to be considered that the GANTT method is based on a forward chaining thinking process, which builds the solution based on the addition of tasks. The backward chaining thinking requires having the “unified field” of the solution in mind in order to have always an alternative action that ensures the achievement of the results. The backward chaining thinking process requires using an adaptive project management process that includes the use of plans A, B, C and D in order to ensure the achievement of results. When this backward chaining thinking approach has been integrated with the adaptive project management model, there is a need to confirm the knowledge of the fundamentals of the specific environment. The fundamental knowledge requires having sound knowledge and successful experiences in the specific field of action or in homologous fields. The knowledge of the fundamentals is the catalyst of the process of ensuring the functionality of the conceptual solution of the problem. The paradox is that it is a catalyst when there is a true valid knowledge but an inhibitor if the fundamentals are approached using rationalistic, subjective or any other fallacious approaches. The maximal strategy expands the boundaries when the solution thinking allows emulating a solution in mind integrating the backward chaining thinking with the knowledge of the fundamentals. When the emulation of the solution has been achieved, it is time to develop the minimum strategy, which requires confirming the conceptual knowledge that underlies. The Minimum Strategy. The minimum strategy of a conceptual design process is to ensure the conceptual solution of the problem that is being managed. The conceptual solution is given by the functionality of the conceptual structure of the entity that is being designed. The first step is to know the essential structure of the concept, which defines the “unified field” of the entity. With the unified field in mind, it is necessary to access the ontogenetic map of the essential concept. The ontogenetic map implies the description of the essential fundamentals following the laws of complementation and supplementation following the evolution cycle. The ontogenetic map defines the ontogenetic algorithm to develop the conceptual design of the solution. Each of the fundamentals that integrates the ontogenetic map works as an extrinsic object when it deals with the attributes of the entity or as a behavioral object when it deals with the approach to the external entity. This ontogenetic map is in fact a knowledge object that defines the structure of the “unified field” that needs to be managed when developing the conceptual design. The risk of this knowledge is that it might be fallacious. Therefore, the next step is to develop the necessary destructive tests to prove the limits of the validity of the knowledge. The Minimum Strategy is sustained by a Learning Process. Unless the ontogenetic map is already installed in the long-term memory of an individual, the use of destructive tests of knowledge unavoidably drive to a learning process. These learning processes require following the stages of the learning of complexity management. These destructive tests of knowledge are the entropy inhibitor of conceptual design. It avoids accessing a complex problem with hypothetical ideas that generate no results. This stage finishes when the knowledge demonstrates its functionality to apprehend the unified field of the solution that is being designed. Thus a conceptual solution can be built in order to provide the necessary complement to complete the process architecture. The Conceptual Design of the Functional Solution. The conceptual design of the functional solution is based on the integration of the emulation of the solution in the mind of the designer that drives the maximal strategy and the conceptual solution that drives the minimum strategy. It has to be considered that the final purpose of the conceptual design is to build a solution in a complex environment. This requires defining the processes and objects that will be used, making the necessary destructive tests of the processes to achieve a functional solution, which is used as the input for the design of the complex system. Complex system building requires necessarily having a strategy to manage the feedback from the environment and the bi-univocal relationship among its components. Therefore, the context of conceptual design is given by its integration with the purpose, which is the building of a complex system and the strategy that is needed to organize growth. It needs to be clarified that a complex system cannot be transformed into an operational system with univocal cause-effect relationships. It remains complex. What needs to be done is to develop simple tasks that can be managed by anyone in order to develop the necessary actions to produce results while the complexity is managed at a superior level. Levels of Conceptual Design. Four levels of conceptual design have been discovered: Level 1. – Guiding Idea: that has the generic guiding idea of what is being designed. Level 2. – Logical Design: that has the logical design of the process. Level 3. – Objects Design: that deals with the design of specific objects. Level 4. – Process Design: that manages the unified field of the solution. Level 1: Guiding Idea. This level of conceptual design is based on the rational knowledge of the conceptual solution and the understanding of the ontogenetic map that allows apprehending the metaphors that are used to categorize the design of the solution. This level of knowledge requires having operational experience in the field of action of the solution without having the knowledge of the unified field that is being managed. Level 2: Logical Design. This level includes the preceding level and includes the capacity of managing the complete structure of the conceptual knowledge of the unified field of the solution. It is based on having the capacity to manage the unified field of knowledge based on integrating it in reasonable and understandable terms as a sort of “semantic network” of interrelated concepts that need to produce a predefined result. This level of design provides conceptual solutions that are controlled making the destructive tests of these solutions. It requires being able to apprehend the triadic structure of concepts. This implies being able to manage the ambiguity of the conceptual structure, which includes, on the one hand, a maxima strategy and, on the other hand, an operational contradictory minimum strategy. Level 3: Objects Design. This level includes the preceding level and includes the capacity of emulating in mind some of the objects that integrate the final solution. On the one hand, Objects design requires having the necessary empathy with the functions that need to be built as objects and with the users of these objects. On the other hand, the design of objects deals with the functional solutions, which requires emulating the solution in mind and developing a backward-chaining process to define the problem that needs to be solved. This process has to be recycled until the final solution has been achieved or has been replaced by a solution of a superior level. The contradictions that will be found in these processes need to be approached by upgrading to a superior level where these contradictions are integrating in a unified field. The objects design is based on the knowledge of the fundamentals of the objects and the knowledge of the purpose to be achieved by the entire system. Level 4: Process Design. This level includes the preceding level and requires being able to integrate the interdependent objects that have bi-univocal influence using a double dialectical approach. This level allows integrating the maximal and minimum strategy of each object in order to ensure the achievement of the results. The process is based on emulating the dynamics of the solution in mind in order to be able to develop adaptive solutions and manage the influence of the environment. The process requires being able to manage the unified field of the entire system and its dynamics, which requires developing the necessary destructive tests of the processes in order to ensure the functionality. The final functional solution needs to have a maximal strategy to expand the boundaries of the system and a minimum strategy to ensure its survival. There has to exist an extreme level of empathy and ambiguity management, because a complex system is a composite object itself where all the ambiguous aspects of the objects and processes that integrate it need to be structured as functional conjunctions.   Generating Value in Adaptive Environments. The unicist conceptual design is necessary to ensure the production of results in adaptive environments. This conceptual design implies having the knowledge of the concepts of reality. The discovery that human actions are driven by the concepts people have, established a new stage in the understanding and influence of individual, institutional and social behavior. The paradigm shift in sciences that was introduced by the Unicist Theory, which is applied to individual, institutional and social behavior, is based on the discovery that human actions are driven by the concepts that individuals have. It is necessary to acknowledge that concepts define the nature of things. These concepts are built in “mind” using the “ontointelligence”, which is the intelligence to apprehend the nature of things and is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the strategic intelligence and the type of logical thought. People who intend to assume the responsibility for the results of their actions need to be aware of the concepts of what they are doing. The unicist conceptual design is the methodology that allows transforming the knowledge of the nature of things into processes to make things happen. It is necessary to be aware of the concept of a given reality in order to be able to assume the responsibility for producing results in adaptive environments. Those who cannot emulate the structure of concepts can only assume the responsibility of operational tasks or use their preconcepts to develop an activity. The discovery of the behavioral objects explained how concepts guide conscious actions. They integrate the available data in the long-term memory, which includes the semantic, episodic and procedural memory. This explained that the capacity to emulate in “mind” the external reality depends on the level of conceptualization of an individual. Academic Committee. NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.


The Unicist Paradigm Shift in Sciences

Print Friendly

Text to Speech avaiable at the bottom

The paradigm shift of the Unicist Theory is based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which is the intelligence that underlies nature. It establishes the basic structures of behavior in nature. The understanding of the unicist paradigm shift is necessary to accept the validity of the resulting applied technologies.

Giving Birth to Complexity Sciences.

The Unicist Paradigm Shift in SciencesThe final goal of the Scientific Research developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute was to find a structural solution for complexity as a universal problem.

The Unicist Theory gave birth to Complexity Sciences, providing both their epistemological structure and their integration with Systemic Sciences. This allowed developing a scientific approach to adaptive environments.

At an operational level the objective was to deal with complex adaptive systems. These systems might be natural systems or artificial complex adaptive systems like cultures, institutions or information systems.

The Paradigm Shift: The Path towards Double Dialectical Actions.

The objective of the research works developed at The Unicist Research Institute has been the development of solutions to influence complex environments in order to foster their evolution. This research drove to a paradigm shift in science, which is based on emulating the maximal and minimum strategies that are implicit in the intelligence that underlies nature.

This allowed discovering the double dialectical behavior of nature and transferring this knowledge to its application to deal with adaptive environments in order to ensure the results that are being fostered.

The core application of the paradigm shift in sciences was the development of maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure survival using double dialectical actions to manage functions in complex environments in order to ensure results.

Dealing with Living Beings and Complex Adaptive Entities.

The unicist approach to complexity emulates nature to deal with natural or artificial complex adaptive systems. Such emulation is based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that regulates the evolution of living beings and natural entities.

The Unicist Theory explains the dynamics and evolution of living beings and complex adaptive entities. It substituted empiricism by a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach and replaced knowledge falsification processes with destructive testing processes.

The four pillars of the paradigm shift developed by Peter Belohlavek are:

1. The unicist theory, which explains the dynamics and evolution of living beings and complex adaptive entities.

2. The unicist theory of evolution, which allows forecasting the future.

3. The epistemological structure of complexity sciences, which allows managing the complex aspects of reality.

4. The unicist theory of the unified field in nature, which allows managing the unified field of complex adaptive systems.

The Unicist Theory.

The Unicist Theory explains the evolution and dynamics of complex adaptive entities whether they are natural beings or artificial entities. This theory is based on the discovery of the triadic structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

Unicist TheoryThe purpose of this theory is to provide a framework to forecast the evolution of adaptive entities considering their restricted and wide contexts.

This theory describes the universal structure of the unified field in nature that is applicable to all complex adaptive entities whatever their kind. It needs to be considered that the unified field has a triadic structure that is homologous to the structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

The evolution of complex adaptive entities is based on the laws of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. This intelligence includes an active principle that drives the evolution and establishes the maximal strategy of the entity while it generates entropic effects. It also includes an energy conservation principle that establishes a minimum strategy to ensure the survival.

This theory allows emulating the organization of nature when dealing with adaptive environments. It is based on forecasting their future scenarios, defining the functional unified fields based on the knowledge of the ontogenetic map that defines their conceptual structure. This approach simplifies the management of complex environments.

Expanding the Boundaries of Sciences.

As it is known, the management of complexity has been an unsolved challenge for sciences. This challenge was faced in 1976 by The Unicist Research Institute that was a pioneering organization in finding a structural solution for complexity without using artificial palliatives.

The paradigm shift, based on the emulation of nature, was developed to solve the need of having reliable knowledge to deal with complex environments. It was provoked by the fallacy of considering empirically-justified knowledge as reliable knowledge.

It allowed managing complex environments as a unified field.

The paradigm shift was triggered by the need to understand complex adaptive systems. The shift implies having subordinated the empirical approach to sciences to a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach to deal with complex environments that integrates, at an operational level, the preexisting empiricism.

History of the Evolution of Operational Knowledge

This is a superior level in sciences that integrates complexity sciences with systemic sciences using the double-dialectical logic to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and using objects to emulate the organization of nature.

The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory.

In this document you will find seven scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory, which confirm its functionality, that allows dealing with complex systems. These evidences are:

1. The functionality of amino acids.

2. The structure of atoms.

3. The structure of biological entities.

4. The nervous system.

5. Similarity between natural and social objects.

6. The homology between the unicist concepts and the stem cells.

7. The homology between thinking processes and the functionality of electricity.

Access the scientific evidences: click here

 

A Synopsis of the Paradigm Shift in Science.

(Before and After the Unicist Theory).

This synopsis describes the “before” and “after” the development of the unicist approach to complexity.

The Unicist Theory changed Sciences as they are known.

Before: Sciences were based on an empirical cause-effect approach that was functional in systemic environments but dysfunctional to deal with complex adaptive environments that have open boundaries and bi-univocal relationships among their components.

After: The unicist approach to sciences is based on a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist framework that allows integrating the scientific approach to both complex and systemic environments. It subordinates the empirical approach to deal with operational aspects after the complex aspects have been managed using a unicist ontological approach. It integrates systemic sciences and complexity sciences in a unified field.

Example in Economics: The knowledge of the unicist ontogenetic maps allow defining the structural economic solution for an entity and the use of the technical-analytical tools allows defining and monitoring the operation.

Development of the Epistemological Structure of Complexity Sciences.

Complexity Science

Before: The category of complexity sciences was inexistent as such. The understanding of complexity was simplified by using artificial palliatives, to generate pseudo-systemic structures of variables. This implies using a dualistic empirical approach to reality.

After: All fields of reality where their evolution depends on the feedback from the context belong to the field of complexity sciences. Complexity Sciences provide solutions for adaptive environments.

Natural or artificial complex adaptive environments are approached as unified fields that are defined and regulated by their ontogenetic structures and are constituted by processes and objects that work as complex adaptive entities. This approach implies using a triadic, pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist framework.

Example: This is the case of natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, economic sciences, political sciences, anthropology, behavioral sciences, etc.

Discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature.

Before: The structure that regulates the evolution of nature was unknown.

After: The structure of nature that regulates its evolution is given by the triadic structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

This intelligence is defined by a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle that are integrated in their oneness defining the functionality of the entity. The active principle drives the evolution while the energy conservation principle sustains the purpose. The ontogenetic intelligence of an entity defines its intrinsic concepts that regulates its evolution.

Example: 1. The structure of the human nervous system where the purpose is defined by the vital function, the active function is given by the motor system and the energy conservation is given by the sensitive system. 2. The structure of the atom where the purpose is given by the protons, the active function is given by the electrons and the energy conservation function is given by the neutrons.

Discovery that the Evolution of Living Beings is driven by a Purpose.

Before: The evolution is random.

After: Evolution is purpose driven to sustain the survival of the species.

Example: The evolution of finches explained by Charles Darwin. The beak of the finches evolves to ensure the survival of the species.

Darwin´s finches

Discovery of the Structure of the Unified Field in Nature.

Before: The apprehension of the Unified Field has been an unsolved problem in sciences. The apprehension of nature was considered as part of intuition and an evidence of wisdom.

After: The Unicist Theory gives access to the triadic structure of the unified field in nature that defines the concept that regulates its evolution.

The discovery of the triadic functionality of ontointelligence allowed apprehending the unified field in nature. It solved the problem of the integration of solutions that are incompatible at an operational level.

This intelligence, that is used by individuals to apprehend the nature of a reality, is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the strategic intelligence and the logical thought. It requires being able to deal with the ambiguity implicit in any complex environment.

It opened the possibility to make reasonable, understandable and provable the emulation of nature. It defines the possibility of managing different levels of complexity in the real world.

Example: The ethical intelligence is the deepest intelligence of human beings that evolves with their maturity and defines the true intentions of individuals when dealing with the environment. It is functional when it is consistent with the ethical intelligence of the environment.

Discovery of the Basic Law of Evolution.

Before: The structure of nature was unknown therefore there were no laws of evolution

After: The evolution implies that the active principle drives the evolution of an entity while the energy conservation sustains the status quo.

When the energy conservation principle prevails, the entity becomes stagnated in order to survive.

Example: 1. The change of the beak of finches is an example of evolution. 2. The encystment of microorganisms is an example of the prevalence of the energy conservation principle.

Application of the Unicist Ontology of Evolution to future research.

Before: The evolution of living beings or complex adaptive environments was forecasted based on experiential benchmarks, the consensus of expert opinions or the use of intuition (Nostradamus and others).

After: The unicist approach to evolution is based on discovering the unicist ontological structure of an environment and using the signs and symptoms in order to infer the future using the principles of evolution. The opinions of experts are used as destructive tests, while pilot forecasts are used as non-destructive tests.

Example: The development of county future scenarios or business long-term planning.

Discovery of the Organization by Objects of Nature.

Before: The Complex Adaptive Systems were managed as systemic systems to manage their processes and functions.

After: Complex adaptive systems, being natural entities or artificially created, are integrated by objects, which are integrated in a unified field.

Each object is an interdependent autonomous entity that fulfills a function and has a quality assurance that ensures its functionality.

Example: 1. The human body is integrated by objects that are evident to everyone and other objects that are not. The organs of the body are objects that are evident and the amino-acids belong to the category of not evident objects. 2. Countries are social entities organized by objects that function as institutional roles. 3) Institutionalized businesses are complex adaptive entities that are organized by objects and functional roles to ensure their permanence.

Development of the Research Framework for Complexity.

Before: The Empiric frameworks were used in order to falsify hypotheses.

After: The use of a Pragmatic, Structuralist and Functionalist framework was the basis for the development of destructive tests to define the limits of knowledge and non destructive tests to confirm the functionality.

Example: 1) The research of complexity has to be done in a real environment and not in artificial environments. 2) The research of complex environments requires an ontological research focused on the objects that integrate a complex adaptive system.

Development of the Unicist Epistemology to Build Reliable Knowledge.

Before: Empiric knowledge is validated by confirming its justifications.

After: Reliable knowledge of complex systems is validated using “foundations” to confirm the functionality of their concepts and justifications to confirm the operational aspects.

Example: The statistical validity of human behavior needs to be applied based on considering that each conceptual segment of a population is an independent universe.

Discovery of the Relationships between Elements in Nature.

Before: There was no knowledge about the conceptual structure of the relationships in nature.

After: The relationships between the elements that integrate a unified field are complementary or supplementary.

There are no other types of relationships among the elements that integrate a unified field than those of complementation and supplementation.

Example: The purpose and the active function of a concept have a relationship of supplementation. The relationship between the purpose of the concept and the energy conservation function is based on a complementary relationship.

Discovery of the Structure of Extrinsic Concepts and Mental Concepts.

Before: (1724 – 1804) Immanuel Kant defined that concepts have a functional meaning that is the framework of any action.

Extrinsic ConceptsAfter: The concepts of non-living entities have the same structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function that define the extrinsic concepts.

These functions work as a unified field that drives human action. The extrinsic concepts define the functionality of things and are deposited by humans in order to manage their nature.

The structure of extrinsic concepts is timeless and cross-cultural; their credibility zone is defined by the environment and its conjuncture. They exist as long as the function exist. The mental concepts are the concepts that guide the actions of individuals and are stored in their long term memory.

Example: The concept of leadership is integrated by a purpose, which is to sustain the authority of an individual, its active function is given by the participation with the group and the energy conservation function is given by the power that an individual has to influence the context.

Development of the Unicist Ontology.

Before: Ontology was an approach to apprehend the nature of reality, which belonged to the field of philosophy.

After: Unicist ontology is a structured approach to apprehend the nature of complex adaptive systems using an emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

The unicist ontology is necessary to deal with Complexity Sciences because it allows defining the concepts that guide actions.

Example: The nature of any strategic approach to reality implies an emulation of nature meaning that there is a purpose to be achieved, the active function is given by a maximal strategy that drives beyond existing boundaries in order to provoke evolution, and the energy conservation function is given by a minimum strategy that ensures survival.

Discovery of the Structure of Complex Adaptive Systems.

Before: The complex adaptive systems were considered as systemic systems. They were managed considering their functional elements as variables.

After: A complex adaptive system is considered as an open system, in which the conjunction of objects and/or subsystems determines the functionality of the unified field.

These systems have no variables but objects that are integrated by the conjunction “and”. In complex systems there is no “or” in the relationships of their objects.

Example: The human body is a paradigmatic example of a complex adaptive system that has no variables. It has objects that fulfill functions and processes that establish the relationships between these objects. The organs of the body are evident objects.

Discovery of the intelligence to deal with complexity.

Before: The use of analogical thinking was dominant and critical thinking was a superior approach to adapt to the environment.

After: The ontointelligence to deal with the unified field of complex environments was discovered. This drove to the integration of analogical thinking, critical thinking and unicist thinking that allows apprehending the unified field and fundamentals of a given reality. Analogical thinking is spontaneous and based on genetic intelligence, critical thinking requires an analytical thinking process and unicist thinking demands the use of a unicist reflection process.

Example: The design of solutions of complex problems.

Development of the Double-dialectical Logic.

Before: The logical approach to deal with sciences was based on empiricism, which requires the use of a dualistic approach in order to disregard the unified field of complex adaptive systems.

Dualism has two main justifications that sustain the artificial isolation of aspects of reality. On the one hand, the “Truth Tables” (True or False) are an example of dualistic logic that is functional to manage systemic functions. But they are dysfunctional to deal with the unified field of complex adaptive environments.

Unicist Double Dialectical LogicOn the other hand, “Ceteris Paribus” is a fallacious solution to isolate variables or aspects of reality that is based on defining all other aspects of a problem as constants. It is used to confront adaptive environments without needing to adapt.

After: The double-dialectical logic is an integrative logic based on the use of conjunctions to define the structure of the unified field of complex adaptive systems using double-dialectical thinking.

The elements included in complex environments are not true or false. They are defined by their levels of functionality. Their functionality is defined by the value generated by the integration of their triadic functions that require the use of the logic of double-dialectics in order to be understood.

Example: Both the dialectics of Hegel and Marx have a dualistic basis using a thesis-antithesis model that drives to a resulting synthesis.

But cultures have homeostatic elements that participate in the social process which implies a triadic dialectical approach defined by a thesis-antithesis-homeostasis model.

To access a triadic approach with a dualistic mind-set (the neurons are on or off) it is necessary to use a double-dialectical model that integrates thesis and antithesis in the active function with the thesis and homeostasis in the energy conservation function.

The double-dialectical logic is a mind-set that needs to be used to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature in order to manage concepts to deal with complex adaptive systems.

Scientific applications of the Unicist Theory that expanded the boundaries of existing sciences by solving their complex aspects:

In Scientific Research – 1980: Development of a unicist ontological methodology for complex systems research, substituting the systemic approach to research adaptive systems. 2014: The integration of the unified field of macro and micro behavior. 2015: Development of the destructive and non-destructive tests to research adaptive environments.

In Life Sciences – 1988: Discovery of the functional structure that regulates evolution and the unicist ontological structure of living beings as a unified field. 2006: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of evolution and involution. 2008: Discovery of the two types of integration, complementation and supplementation, of elements in complex adaptive systems.2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of biological entities. 2013: Confirmation of the unicist ontology of viruses. 2014: Discovery of the ontological structure of chronic diseases. 2014:Discovery of the structure of therapeutics. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of health. 2016: Development of the Scientific Foundations of Medicine.

In Complexity Sciences – 1998: Development of the unicist ontology emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. 2003: Discovery of the anti-concepts that work as antimatter. 2006: Development of objects to manage human adaptive systems emulating the structure of nature. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complex adaptive systems.2014: Discovery of the behavior of objects in complex adaptive systems. 2015: Discovery of the essential opposition but operational complementation between the active function and the energy conservation function of concepts. 2017: Discovery of the unicist ontology that integrates the wide and restricted contexts.

In Information Sciences – 2002: Development of unicist ontogenetic based ontologies replacing the empirically structured ontologies. 2014: Development of unicist adaptive robotics. 2015: Development of prototypers. 2016: Discovery of the nature of conceptual design.

In Future Research and Strategy – 1984: Modeling of the ontological structures that allow inferring the evolution developing the ontogenetic maps of human adaptive systems. 2014: Confirmation of the functionality of ethical intelligence in future research. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of personal strategies. 2016: Discovery of the nature of entrepreneurial strategies. 2017: Discovery of the double dialectical tactics.

In Logic – 1986: Development and formalization of the integrative and the unicist logic. 2013: Functionality of Dualistic Logic in complex environments. 2013: Discovery of the structure of aprioristic fallacies.

In Anthropology – 1986: Discovery of the “invariables” of human behavior. 1997: Discovery of the double dialectical behavior. 2008: Discovery of the anthropological lifestyles. 2010: Discovery of the institutional and social viruses. 2012: Discovery of the integration of ontogeny and phylogeny. 2012: Discovery of the stagnant survivors’ role in societies. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of aptitudes, attitudes and intentions. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of cultural adaptiveness & over-adaptiveness. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Anthropology. 2014: Discovery of the Cultural, Institutional, Individual and Social Archetypes. 2015: Discovery of the functionality of rationalism and subjectivism as social and individual addictions. 2016: Discovery of the nature of innovation processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of social dysfunctional utopias.

In Economic Science – 1989: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of Economics.1998: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of the price elasticity of demand. 2004: Discovery of the ontogenetic structure of economic models and their functionality. 2011: Discovery of the ontology of currency and inflation. 2012: Discovery of the ontology of the industrialization level. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of the overcoming of scarcity. 2012: Pricing of Futures and Options. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of speculative manipulation. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Economy. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of economic freedom.

In Political Science – 1990: Development of the ontological algorithm and the ontogenesis and phylogeny of ideologies and their functionality. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of Social, Economic and Political Democracy.

In Social Sciences – 1993: Discovery of the collective unconscious and the unicist archetypes of cultures. 2012: Discovery of the role of stagnant survivor elites in the stagnation of segments or cultures. 2016: Discovery of the nature of social networks.

In Linguistics – 2004: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithms of natural, ambiguous and figurative languages and the unicist ontology of words. 2014: Development of semantic objects. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of subliminal communication.

In Mathematics – 1996: Development of the conceptual basis of interdependent, dependent and independent variables. 2014: Development of the mathematical foundations of reality indicators.

In Philosophy – 1994: Development of the unicist ontology integrating philosophy, science and action in a unified field. 1997: Refutation of Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectics and the formulation of the laws of the double dialectics.

In History – 2000: Development of a historical analysis methodology based on the unicist double dialectics.

In Cognitive Science – 2001: Development of a methodology to construct knowledge with existing information through an integrative logic. 2002: Development of the unicist reflection methodology to deal with the nature of reality. 2006: Discovery of the object driven organization of mental processes and the development of cognitive objects. 2008: Development of the ontological algorithms of fundamental analysis. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of erudition and wisdom (observers vs. participants). 2014: Discovery of the structure of the emulation of reality. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conceptualization.

In Education – 1979: Discovery of the ontogenetic algorithms of learning which has given scientific sustainability, amongst others, to Piaget. 2014: Discovery and development of learning objects. 2015: Development of Reflection Driven Education. 2016: Discovery of the nature of learning by teaching.

In Psychology – 1984: Discovery of human ontointelligence to deal with adaptive systems. 2003: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of fallacies, the functionality of anti-intelligence and anti-intuition. 2004: Discovery of the double dialectical thinking process. 2005: Discovery of the unicist ontology and evolution laws of human essential complexes. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conscious behavior. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complementation of thinking processes. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of psychopathy. 2014: Discovery of the structure of subliminal decision-making. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Psychology. 2015: Functionality of concepts as behavioral objects. 2016: Discovery of the nature of human metamorphosis. 2016: Discovery of the functionality of thinking processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of personal dysfunctional utopias.

In Semiology – 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of semiosis as a complex adaptive system. 2015: Development of semiotic role objects. 2017: Development of the semiotic research groups.

Academic Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

  Click to listen highlighted text! The paradigm shift of the Unicist Theory is based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, which is the intelligence that underlies nature. It establishes the basic structures of behavior in nature. The understanding of the unicist paradigm shift is necessary to accept the validity of the resulting applied technologies. Giving Birth to Complexity Sciences. The final goal of the Scientific Research developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute was to find a structural solution for complexity as a universal problem. The Unicist Theory gave birth to Complexity Sciences, providing both their epistemological structure and their integration with Systemic Sciences. This allowed developing a scientific approach to adaptive environments. At an operational level the objective was to deal with complex adaptive systems. These systems might be natural systems or artificial complex adaptive systems like cultures, institutions or information systems. The Paradigm Shift: The Path towards Double Dialectical Actions. The objective of the research works developed at The Unicist Research Institute has been the development of solutions to influence complex environments in order to foster their evolution. This research drove to a paradigm shift in science, which is based on emulating the maximal and minimum strategies that are implicit in the intelligence that underlies nature. This allowed discovering the double dialectical behavior of nature and transferring this knowledge to its application to deal with adaptive environments in order to ensure the results that are being fostered. The core application of the paradigm shift in sciences was the development of maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure survival using double dialectical actions to manage functions in complex environments in order to ensure results. Dealing with Living Beings and Complex Adaptive Entities. The unicist approach to complexity emulates nature to deal with natural or artificial complex adaptive systems. Such emulation is based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that regulates the evolution of living beings and natural entities. The Unicist Theory explains the dynamics and evolution of living beings and complex adaptive entities. It substituted empiricism by a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach and replaced knowledge falsification processes with destructive testing processes. The four pillars of the paradigm shift developed by Peter Belohlavek are: 1. The unicist theory, which explains the dynamics and evolution of living beings and complex adaptive entities. 2. The unicist theory of evolution, which allows forecasting the future. 3. The epistemological structure of complexity sciences, which allows managing the complex aspects of reality. 4. The unicist theory of the unified field in nature, which allows managing the unified field of complex adaptive systems. The Unicist Theory. The Unicist Theory explains the evolution and dynamics of complex adaptive entities whether they are natural beings or artificial entities. This theory is based on the discovery of the triadic structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. The purpose of this theory is to provide a framework to forecast the evolution of adaptive entities considering their restricted and wide contexts. This theory describes the universal structure of the unified field in nature that is applicable to all complex adaptive entities whatever their kind. It needs to be considered that the unified field has a triadic structure that is homologous to the structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. The evolution of complex adaptive entities is based on the laws of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. This intelligence includes an active principle that drives the evolution and establishes the maximal strategy of the entity while it generates entropic effects. It also includes an energy conservation principle that establishes a minimum strategy to ensure the survival. This theory allows emulating the organization of nature when dealing with adaptive environments. It is based on forecasting their future scenarios, defining the functional unified fields based on the knowledge of the ontogenetic map that defines their conceptual structure. This approach simplifies the management of complex environments. Expanding the Boundaries of Sciences. As it is known, the management of complexity has been an unsolved challenge for sciences. This challenge was faced in 1976 by The Unicist Research Institute that was a pioneering organization in finding a structural solution for complexity without using artificial palliatives. The paradigm shift, based on the emulation of nature, was developed to solve the need of having reliable knowledge to deal with complex environments. It was provoked by the fallacy of considering empirically-justified knowledge as reliable knowledge. It allowed managing complex environments as a unified field. The paradigm shift was triggered by the need to understand complex adaptive systems. The shift implies having subordinated the empirical approach to sciences to a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach to deal with complex environments that integrates, at an operational level, the preexisting empiricism. This is a superior level in sciences that integrates complexity sciences with systemic sciences using the double-dialectical logic to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and using objects to emulate the organization of nature. The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory. In this document you will find seven scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory, which confirm its functionality, that allows dealing with complex systems. These evidences are: 1. The functionality of amino acids. 2. The structure of atoms. 3. The structure of biological entities. 4. The nervous system. 5. Similarity between natural and social objects. 6. The homology between the unicist concepts and the stem cells. 7. The homology between thinking processes and the functionality of electricity. Access the scientific evidences: click here   A Synopsis of the Paradigm Shift in Science. (Before and After the Unicist Theory). This synopsis describes the “before” and “after” the development of the unicist approach to complexity. The Unicist Theory changed Sciences as they are known. Before: Sciences were based on an empirical cause-effect approach that was functional in systemic environments but dysfunctional to deal with complex adaptive environments that have open boundaries and bi-univocal relationships among their components. After: The unicist approach to sciences is based on a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist framework that allows integrating the scientific approach to both complex and systemic environments. It subordinates the empirical approach to deal with operational aspects after the complex aspects have been managed using a unicist ontological approach. It integrates systemic sciences and complexity sciences in a unified field. Example in Economics: The knowledge of the unicist ontogenetic maps allow defining the structural economic solution for an entity and the use of the technical-analytical tools allows defining and monitoring the operation. Development of the Epistemological Structure of Complexity Sciences. Before: The category of complexity sciences was inexistent as such. The understanding of complexity was simplified by using artificial palliatives, to generate pseudo-systemic structures of variables. This implies using a dualistic empirical approach to reality. After: All fields of reality where their evolution depends on the feedback from the context belong to the field of complexity sciences. Complexity Sciences provide solutions for adaptive environments. Natural or artificial complex adaptive environments are approached as unified fields that are defined and regulated by their ontogenetic structures and are constituted by processes and objects that work as complex adaptive entities. This approach implies using a triadic, pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist framework. Example: This is the case of natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, economic sciences, political sciences, anthropology, behavioral sciences, etc. Discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature. Before: The structure that regulates the evolution of nature was unknown. After: The structure of nature that regulates its evolution is given by the triadic structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. This intelligence is defined by a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle that are integrated in their oneness defining the functionality of the entity. The active principle drives the evolution while the energy conservation principle sustains the purpose. The ontogenetic intelligence of an entity defines its intrinsic concepts that regulates its evolution. Example: 1. The structure of the human nervous system where the purpose is defined by the vital function, the active function is given by the motor system and the energy conservation is given by the sensitive system. 2. The structure of the atom where the purpose is given by the protons, the active function is given by the electrons and the energy conservation function is given by the neutrons. Discovery that the Evolution of Living Beings is driven by a Purpose. Before: The evolution is random. After: Evolution is purpose driven to sustain the survival of the species. Example: The evolution of finches explained by Charles Darwin. The beak of the finches evolves to ensure the survival of the species. Discovery of the Structure of the Unified Field in Nature. Before: The apprehension of the Unified Field has been an unsolved problem in sciences. The apprehension of nature was considered as part of intuition and an evidence of wisdom. After: The Unicist Theory gives access to the triadic structure of the unified field in nature that defines the concept that regulates its evolution. The discovery of the triadic functionality of ontointelligence allowed apprehending the unified field in nature. It solved the problem of the integration of solutions that are incompatible at an operational level. This intelligence, that is used by individuals to apprehend the nature of a reality, is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the strategic intelligence and the logical thought. It requires being able to deal with the ambiguity implicit in any complex environment. It opened the possibility to make reasonable, understandable and provable the emulation of nature. It defines the possibility of managing different levels of complexity in the real world. Example: The ethical intelligence is the deepest intelligence of human beings that evolves with their maturity and defines the true intentions of individuals when dealing with the environment. It is functional when it is consistent with the ethical intelligence of the environment. Discovery of the Basic Law of Evolution. Before: The structure of nature was unknown therefore there were no laws of evolution After: The evolution implies that the active principle drives the evolution of an entity while the energy conservation sustains the status quo. When the energy conservation principle prevails, the entity becomes stagnated in order to survive. Example: 1. The change of the beak of finches is an example of evolution. 2. The encystment of microorganisms is an example of the prevalence of the energy conservation principle. Application of the Unicist Ontology of Evolution to future research. Before: The evolution of living beings or complex adaptive environments was forecasted based on experiential benchmarks, the consensus of expert opinions or the use of intuition (Nostradamus and others). After: The unicist approach to evolution is based on discovering the unicist ontological structure of an environment and using the signs and symptoms in order to infer the future using the principles of evolution. The opinions of experts are used as destructive tests, while pilot forecasts are used as non-destructive tests. Example: The development of county future scenarios or business long-term planning. Discovery of the Organization by Objects of Nature. Before: The Complex Adaptive Systems were managed as systemic systems to manage their processes and functions. After: Complex adaptive systems, being natural entities or artificially created, are integrated by objects, which are integrated in a unified field. Each object is an interdependent autonomous entity that fulfills a function and has a quality assurance that ensures its functionality. Example: 1. The human body is integrated by objects that are evident to everyone and other objects that are not. The organs of the body are objects that are evident and the amino-acids belong to the category of not evident objects. 2. Countries are social entities organized by objects that function as institutional roles. 3) Institutionalized businesses are complex adaptive entities that are organized by objects and functional roles to ensure their permanence. Development of the Research Framework for Complexity. Before: The Empiric frameworks were used in order to falsify hypotheses. After: The use of a Pragmatic, Structuralist and Functionalist framework was the basis for the development of destructive tests to define the limits of knowledge and non destructive tests to confirm the functionality. Example: 1) The research of complexity has to be done in a real environment and not in artificial environments. 2) The research of complex environments requires an ontological research focused on the objects that integrate a complex adaptive system. Development of the Unicist Epistemology to Build Reliable Knowledge. Before: Empiric knowledge is validated by confirming its justifications. After: Reliable knowledge of complex systems is validated using “foundations” to confirm the functionality of their concepts and justifications to confirm the operational aspects. Example: The statistical validity of human behavior needs to be applied based on considering that each conceptual segment of a population is an independent universe. Discovery of the Relationships between Elements in Nature. Before: There was no knowledge about the conceptual structure of the relationships in nature. After: The relationships between the elements that integrate a unified field are complementary or supplementary. There are no other types of relationships among the elements that integrate a unified field than those of complementation and supplementation. Example: The purpose and the active function of a concept have a relationship of supplementation. The relationship between the purpose of the concept and the energy conservation function is based on a complementary relationship. Discovery of the Structure of Extrinsic Concepts and Mental Concepts. Before: (1724 – 1804) Immanuel Kant defined that concepts have a functional meaning that is the framework of any action. After: The concepts of non-living entities have the same structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function that define the extrinsic concepts. These functions work as a unified field that drives human action. The extrinsic concepts define the functionality of things and are deposited by humans in order to manage their nature. The structure of extrinsic concepts is timeless and cross-cultural; their credibility zone is defined by the environment and its conjuncture. They exist as long as the function exist. The mental concepts are the concepts that guide the actions of individuals and are stored in their long term memory. Example: The concept of leadership is integrated by a purpose, which is to sustain the authority of an individual, its active function is given by the participation with the group and the energy conservation function is given by the power that an individual has to influence the context. Development of the Unicist Ontology. Before: Ontology was an approach to apprehend the nature of reality, which belonged to the field of philosophy. After: Unicist ontology is a structured approach to apprehend the nature of complex adaptive systems using an emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. The unicist ontology is necessary to deal with Complexity Sciences because it allows defining the concepts that guide actions. Example: The nature of any strategic approach to reality implies an emulation of nature meaning that there is a purpose to be achieved, the active function is given by a maximal strategy that drives beyond existing boundaries in order to provoke evolution, and the energy conservation function is given by a minimum strategy that ensures survival. Discovery of the Structure of Complex Adaptive Systems. Before: The complex adaptive systems were considered as systemic systems. They were managed considering their functional elements as variables. After: A complex adaptive system is considered as an open system, in which the conjunction of objects and/or subsystems determines the functionality of the unified field. These systems have no variables but objects that are integrated by the conjunction “and”. In complex systems there is no “or” in the relationships of their objects. Example: The human body is a paradigmatic example of a complex adaptive system that has no variables. It has objects that fulfill functions and processes that establish the relationships between these objects. The organs of the body are evident objects. Discovery of the intelligence to deal with complexity. Before: The use of analogical thinking was dominant and critical thinking was a superior approach to adapt to the environment. After: The ontointelligence to deal with the unified field of complex environments was discovered. This drove to the integration of analogical thinking, critical thinking and unicist thinking that allows apprehending the unified field and fundamentals of a given reality. Analogical thinking is spontaneous and based on genetic intelligence, critical thinking requires an analytical thinking process and unicist thinking demands the use of a unicist reflection process. Example: The design of solutions of complex problems. Development of the Double-dialectical Logic. Before: The logical approach to deal with sciences was based on empiricism, which requires the use of a dualistic approach in order to disregard the unified field of complex adaptive systems. Dualism has two main justifications that sustain the artificial isolation of aspects of reality. On the one hand, the “Truth Tables” (True or False) are an example of dualistic logic that is functional to manage systemic functions. But they are dysfunctional to deal with the unified field of complex adaptive environments. On the other hand, “Ceteris Paribus” is a fallacious solution to isolate variables or aspects of reality that is based on defining all other aspects of a problem as constants. It is used to confront adaptive environments without needing to adapt. After: The double-dialectical logic is an integrative logic based on the use of conjunctions to define the structure of the unified field of complex adaptive systems using double-dialectical thinking. The elements included in complex environments are not true or false. They are defined by their levels of functionality. Their functionality is defined by the value generated by the integration of their triadic functions that require the use of the logic of double-dialectics in order to be understood. Example: Both the dialectics of Hegel and Marx have a dualistic basis using a thesis-antithesis model that drives to a resulting synthesis. But cultures have homeostatic elements that participate in the social process which implies a triadic dialectical approach defined by a thesis-antithesis-homeostasis model. To access a triadic approach with a dualistic mind-set (the neurons are on or off) it is necessary to use a double-dialectical model that integrates thesis and antithesis in the active function with the thesis and homeostasis in the energy conservation function. The double-dialectical logic is a mind-set that needs to be used to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature in order to manage concepts to deal with complex adaptive systems. Scientific applications of the Unicist Theory that expanded the boundaries of existing sciences by solving their complex aspects: In Scientific Research – 1980: Development of a unicist ontological methodology for complex systems research, substituting the systemic approach to research adaptive systems. 2014: The integration of the unified field of macro and micro behavior. 2015: Development of the destructive and non-destructive tests to research adaptive environments. In Life Sciences – 1988: Discovery of the functional structure that regulates evolution and the unicist ontological structure of living beings as a unified field. 2006: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of evolution and involution. 2008: Discovery of the two types of integration, complementation and supplementation, of elements in complex adaptive systems.2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of biological entities. 2013: Confirmation of the unicist ontology of viruses. 2014: Discovery of the ontological structure of chronic diseases. 2014:Discovery of the structure of therapeutics. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of health. 2016: Development of the Scientific Foundations of Medicine. In Complexity Sciences – 1998: Development of the unicist ontology emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. 2003: Discovery of the anti-concepts that work as antimatter. 2006: Development of objects to manage human adaptive systems emulating the structure of nature. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complex adaptive systems.2014: Discovery of the behavior of objects in complex adaptive systems. 2015: Discovery of the essential opposition but operational complementation between the active function and the energy conservation function of concepts. 2017: Discovery of the unicist ontology that integrates the wide and restricted contexts. In Information Sciences – 2002: Development of unicist ontogenetic based ontologies replacing the empirically structured ontologies. 2014: Development of unicist adaptive robotics. 2015: Development of prototypers. 2016: Discovery of the nature of conceptual design. In Future Research and Strategy – 1984: Modeling of the ontological structures that allow inferring the evolution developing the ontogenetic maps of human adaptive systems. 2014: Confirmation of the functionality of ethical intelligence in future research. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of personal strategies. 2016: Discovery of the nature of entrepreneurial strategies. 2017: Discovery of the double dialectical tactics. In Logic – 1986: Development and formalization of the integrative and the unicist logic. 2013: Functionality of Dualistic Logic in complex environments. 2013: Discovery of the structure of aprioristic fallacies. In Anthropology – 1986: Discovery of the “invariables” of human behavior. 1997: Discovery of the double dialectical behavior. 2008: Discovery of the anthropological lifestyles. 2010: Discovery of the institutional and social viruses. 2012: Discovery of the integration of ontogeny and phylogeny. 2012: Discovery of the stagnant survivors’ role in societies. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of aptitudes, attitudes and intentions. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of cultural adaptiveness & over-adaptiveness. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Anthropology. 2014: Discovery of the Cultural, Institutional, Individual and Social Archetypes. 2015: Discovery of the functionality of rationalism and subjectivism as social and individual addictions. 2016: Discovery of the nature of innovation processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of social dysfunctional utopias. In Economic Science – 1989: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of Economics.1998: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of the price elasticity of demand. 2004: Discovery of the ontogenetic structure of economic models and their functionality. 2011: Discovery of the ontology of currency and inflation. 2012: Discovery of the ontology of the industrialization level. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of the overcoming of scarcity. 2012: Pricing of Futures and Options. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of speculative manipulation. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Economy. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of economic freedom. In Political Science – 1990: Development of the ontological algorithm and the ontogenesis and phylogeny of ideologies and their functionality. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of Social, Economic and Political Democracy. In Social Sciences – 1993: Discovery of the collective unconscious and the unicist archetypes of cultures. 2012: Discovery of the role of stagnant survivor elites in the stagnation of segments or cultures. 2016: Discovery of the nature of social networks. In Linguistics – 2004: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithms of natural, ambiguous and figurative languages and the unicist ontology of words. 2014: Development of semantic objects. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of subliminal communication. In Mathematics – 1996: Development of the conceptual basis of interdependent, dependent and independent variables. 2014: Development of the mathematical foundations of reality indicators. In Philosophy – 1994: Development of the unicist ontology integrating philosophy, science and action in a unified field. 1997: Refutation of Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectics and the formulation of the laws of the double dialectics. In History – 2000: Development of a historical analysis methodology based on the unicist double dialectics. In Cognitive Science – 2001: Development of a methodology to construct knowledge with existing information through an integrative logic. 2002: Development of the unicist reflection methodology to deal with the nature of reality. 2006: Discovery of the object driven organization of mental processes and the development of cognitive objects. 2008: Development of the ontological algorithms of fundamental analysis. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of erudition and wisdom (observers vs. participants). 2014: Discovery of the structure of the emulation of reality. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conceptualization. In Education – 1979: Discovery of the ontogenetic algorithms of learning which has given scientific sustainability, amongst others, to Piaget. 2014: Discovery and development of learning objects. 2015: Development of Reflection Driven Education. 2016: Discovery of the nature of learning by teaching. In Psychology – 1984: Discovery of human ontointelligence to deal with adaptive systems. 2003: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of fallacies, the functionality of anti-intelligence and anti-intuition. 2004: Discovery of the double dialectical thinking process. 2005: Discovery of the unicist ontology and evolution laws of human essential complexes. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conscious behavior. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complementation of thinking processes. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of psychopathy. 2014: Discovery of the structure of subliminal decision-making. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Psychology. 2015: Functionality of concepts as behavioral objects. 2016: Discovery of the nature of human metamorphosis. 2016: Discovery of the functionality of thinking processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of personal dysfunctional utopias. In Semiology – 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of semiosis as a complex adaptive system. 2015: Development of semiotic role objects. 2017: Development of the semiotic research groups. Academic Committee NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.


Unicist Logic and its Mathematics

Print Friendly

Text to Speech avaiable at the bottom

The unicist logic is a double dialectical logic that emulates the structure of the intelligence that underlies nature, which makes it belong to the field of complexity sciences and not philosophy. Paradoxically, this logic integrates the functionality of the preexisting logical approaches. The unicist thinking process allows emulating the double dialectical logic in mind in order to apprehend complex adaptive systems.

From Dualism to Double Dialectical Approaches.

The dualism of neural functionality makes dualistic logical approaches become the natural way to deal with reality. This dualism is functional in operational environments, ruled by cause-effect relationships where the actors dominate the consequences of their actions.

Common sense is the consequence of having found recipes using dualistic logic. Common sense rules are pre-concepts that work as recipes for the one who uses them.

At an abstract level, truth tables are also the consequence of the use of dualism. In the field of dualistic approaches things are true or false, good or bad, etc.

The disjunction “OR” is the basic rule when dealing with dualistic approaches in operational environments. This makes people feel powerful because they establish the “OR” they need.

But when dealing with adaptive aspects of reality there is no possibility to define actions using a dualistic approach because the triadic structure of reality cannot be apprehended with a binary model.

The triadic structure of reality is defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function.

To apprehend this triadic structure with a binary mind it is necessary to be able to build a double dialectical approach in mind that emulates a specific reality.

This approach was named unicist double dialectical logic because it allows defining the unified field of adaptive systems in order to diagnose and influence them. It is based on the fact that in complex systems all the elements are integrated by the conjunction “AND”.

The Unicist double dialectical approach leaves behind the truth tables (True “OR” False) and replaces them with functional tables evaluating the functionality based on predefined purposes.

The unicist reflection process: action-reflection-action is the technology to be used to transform dualistic logical approaches into unicist double dialectical approaches in order to define complex adaptive systems.

This technology allows starting with the use of disjunctions “OR” and ending with the use of conjunctions “AND”.

This process requires that those who have decided to deal with complex problems need to be fully focused on producing results, have sound knowledge of the problem and have decided to influence it in an adapted way.

The paradox is that at the end the diagnoses and solutions found need to be transformed into operational “recipes” in order to make them manageable by ordinary people.

But it has to be considered that without being able to manage the triadic structure of complex adaptive systems, the diagnoses and solutions developed are either palliatives or fallacies that cannot produce meaningful results.

Unicist Logic applied to Reality.

The dialectical logic of Hegel and Marx follow the natural dualistic operation of neurons (on/off). It is functional to rationalism.

The unicist double dialectical logic uses the dualistic operation of neurons to build a mental emulation of the structure of nature that allows dealing with the adaptive aspects of reality.

Unicist thinking is the name given to the process that allows building the double dialectical logic.

Unicist thinking allows emulating in mind the structure of adaptive aspects of reality in order to manage them. It provides the necessary operating system to manage adaptive systems to expand the boundaries of an activity and infer future scenarios in order to adapt.

Unicist thinking allows defining the nature of reality in a reasonable and provable way. It is based on double dialectical thinking in order apprehend nature emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

It is necessary to diagnose, build strategies and design architectures. It provides the structure to understand the fundamentals of an activity and integrate the fundamental knowledge with the technical analytical knowledge to make decisions.

The discovery of the unicist thinking approach is based on:

1. The discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that drives the evolution of living beings.

2. The discovery of onto-intelligence which is the human intelligence to adapt to the environment and is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the type of thought, and the strategic intelligence.

Unicist Thinking allows emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature using the double dialectical thinking. It is a demonstration that the dualistic dialectical approaches that Hegel and Marx developed to explain the evolution of human behavior are fallacious.

Complementation and Supplementation Laws.

Unicist Thinking requires emulating in mind the complementary and supplementary relationships that integrate the double dialectic. The elements that are part of an entity in nature are integrated by supplementary and complementary relationships. There exist no other types of relationships in nature.

These relationships can be perfect or imperfect. When they are perfect the entity evolves in a stable way, when they are imperfect they generate a high level of entropy.

The purpose, the conservation function and the active function of a concept are integrated by logical rules which sustain their unity.

While the purpose and the active function are sustained by the supplementation law, the purpose and the conservation function are integrated by the complementation law.

Supplementation Law.

It is a relation between elements with redundant purposes and verbal functions, having a different homeostatic element. One of the elements has a superior “myth” that challenges the evolution of reality.

Complementation Law.

It is an interdependent relation between two elements, actions or ideas. Each one of these elements has what the other element requires and they both have a coincident homeostatic element.

Complements sustain the weaknesses of the purpose to avoid the entropy produced by the action.

When the homeostatic value can buffer the changes produced by the active function, the functionality/credibility zone is relatively stable.

Mathematics.

The Mathematics of the unicist logic was developed to define the field of the possibilities to influence a reality and the probabilities of being successful when doing so.

The unicist mathematical solution is very simple. Considering the three dimensions that underlie a given reality, the integration of the three elements is given by their multiplication. What is being multiplied is:

  • The purpose.
  • The active function.
  • The energy conservation function.

Optimal functionality is considered as 1 and dysfunctionality is considered as 0.

The credibility zone functions as a fuzzy set. The non-destructive pilot testing, when researching the concept of a reality, defines the validity of the credibility/functionality zone. The destructive testing defines the external “limit” of the credibility/functionality zone.

Characteristics of reality are transformed into figures and the resulting figures are retransformed into characteristics.

When analyzing a specific fact, the aesthetic of a specific coat, the credibility zone is given by the category of “coats”. Considering the categorical credibility zone, the perception of the aesthetics of the particular coat should be nearby 1 (one).

But credibilities and functionalities are continuously moving. There are conjunctural movements, between the invariables “security” and “freedom”, and there are structural movements towards “expansion” or “contraction”. The structural movements that occur define the trend of a culture.

“1” must be considered the optimum of a credibility or functionality. The optimum is placed at the external limit of the credibility/functionality zone driven by the existing trend. This is the point where the minimum energy is required to adapt to an environment.

Declining environmental trends lead towards contraction. Evolving environmental trends lead towards expansion.

Extreme contraction produces the implosion of reality and extreme expansion produces its explosion.

Unicist Mathematics intended to give an answer to the question of the possibilities to succeed when a particular reality differs significantly from 1 (one).

Differentiation may be caused by three reasons.

1. The active function is not functional enough.

2. The energy conservation is insufficient.

3. The purpose is far away from being fulfilled.

The change of actions (through the active function) depends on the will of the individual to do so and on his success in the process.

The change in the energy conservation function requires a previous change in the action principle that makes the conservation dysfunctional.

The change of the purpose of a reality implies changing both the actions, to make it possible, and the energy conservation, to sustain a different purpose without changing the credibility/functionality zone.

Thus the probability to succeed when a particular reality must be changed to adapt to an environment can be defined as:

P(S) =  Purpose3 * Energy conservation function2 * Active function

This shows how difficult it is to influence an environment when the specific action that is proposed differs from reality.

When the distance between the purpose being proposed and the purpose of the environment is significant, the project is basically unachievable, because the necessary energy to change the environment is so high that is uneconomical.

When the distance between the energy conservation function of a specific proposal differs significantly from the environment, the cost of influencing reality is extremely high and the possibilities of achieving adequate results are low.

The only function that can be influenced with affordable costs is the active function. This is why innovations are only possible if the distance to the pre-existing reality is accessible without making structural changes.

Operational aspects.

The unicist logic is an integrative logic that always implies the “and” conjunction among its elements, which means a product among the values.

These values are always “0” or “1”. Thus, when one of the values is zero, the value of the concept is also zero. It makes it non-existing.

The Mathematics of the fuzzy logic is applicable to the operational concept.

This mathematics of the fuzzy logic solves the problem of defining the myths where the verbs operate. It establishes the adverbs quite clearly. But in order to integrate the concept as a whole it is required to apprehend the taxonomy implicit in the dialectics and to understand the relative weight of the substantive, verbal and adverbial functions.

When using the unicist logic to compare different alternatives, it is necessary to make a mathematical development that allows the comparison of such alternatives to come to a decision.

Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

  Click to listen highlighted text! The unicist logic is a double dialectical logic that emulates the structure of the intelligence that underlies nature, which makes it belong to the field of complexity sciences and not philosophy. Paradoxically, this logic integrates the functionality of the preexisting logical approaches. The unicist thinking process allows emulating the double dialectical logic in mind in order to apprehend complex adaptive systems. From Dualism to Double Dialectical Approaches. The dualism of neural functionality makes dualistic logical approaches become the natural way to deal with reality. This dualism is functional in operational environments, ruled by cause-effect relationships where the actors dominate the consequences of their actions. Common sense is the consequence of having found recipes using dualistic logic. Common sense rules are pre-concepts that work as recipes for the one who uses them. At an abstract level, truth tables are also the consequence of the use of dualism. In the field of dualistic approaches things are true or false, good or bad, etc. The disjunction “OR” is the basic rule when dealing with dualistic approaches in operational environments. This makes people feel powerful because they establish the “OR” they need. But when dealing with adaptive aspects of reality there is no possibility to define actions using a dualistic approach because the triadic structure of reality cannot be apprehended with a binary model. The triadic structure of reality is defined by a purpose, an active function and an energy conservation function. To apprehend this triadic structure with a binary mind it is necessary to be able to build a double dialectical approach in mind that emulates a specific reality. This approach was named unicist double dialectical logic because it allows defining the unified field of adaptive systems in order to diagnose and influence them. It is based on the fact that in complex systems all the elements are integrated by the conjunction “AND”. The Unicist double dialectical approach leaves behind the truth tables (True “OR” False) and replaces them with functional tables evaluating the functionality based on predefined purposes. The unicist reflection process: action-reflection-action is the technology to be used to transform dualistic logical approaches into unicist double dialectical approaches in order to define complex adaptive systems. This technology allows starting with the use of disjunctions “OR” and ending with the use of conjunctions “AND”. This process requires that those who have decided to deal with complex problems need to be fully focused on producing results, have sound knowledge of the problem and have decided to influence it in an adapted way. The paradox is that at the end the diagnoses and solutions found need to be transformed into operational “recipes” in order to make them manageable by ordinary people. But it has to be considered that without being able to manage the triadic structure of complex adaptive systems, the diagnoses and solutions developed are either palliatives or fallacies that cannot produce meaningful results. Unicist Logic applied to Reality. The dialectical logic of Hegel and Marx follow the natural dualistic operation of neurons (on/off). It is functional to rationalism. The unicist double dialectical logic uses the dualistic operation of neurons to build a mental emulation of the structure of nature that allows dealing with the adaptive aspects of reality. Unicist thinking is the name given to the process that allows building the double dialectical logic. Unicist thinking allows emulating in mind the structure of adaptive aspects of reality in order to manage them. It provides the necessary operating system to manage adaptive systems to expand the boundaries of an activity and infer future scenarios in order to adapt. Unicist thinking allows defining the nature of reality in a reasonable and provable way. It is based on double dialectical thinking in order apprehend nature emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. It is necessary to diagnose, build strategies and design architectures. It provides the structure to understand the fundamentals of an activity and integrate the fundamental knowledge with the technical analytical knowledge to make decisions. The discovery of the unicist thinking approach is based on: 1. The discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that drives the evolution of living beings. 2. The discovery of onto-intelligence which is the human intelligence to adapt to the environment and is integrated by the ethical intelligence, the type of thought, and the strategic intelligence. Unicist Thinking allows emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature using the double dialectical thinking. It is a demonstration that the dualistic dialectical approaches that Hegel and Marx developed to explain the evolution of human behavior are fallacious. Complementation and Supplementation Laws. Unicist Thinking requires emulating in mind the complementary and supplementary relationships that integrate the double dialectic. The elements that are part of an entity in nature are integrated by supplementary and complementary relationships. There exist no other types of relationships in nature. These relationships can be perfect or imperfect. When they are perfect the entity evolves in a stable way, when they are imperfect they generate a high level of entropy. The purpose, the conservation function and the active function of a concept are integrated by logical rules which sustain their unity. While the purpose and the active function are sustained by the supplementation law, the purpose and the conservation function are integrated by the complementation law. Supplementation Law. It is a relation between elements with redundant purposes and verbal functions, having a different homeostatic element. One of the elements has a superior “myth” that challenges the evolution of reality. Complementation Law. It is an interdependent relation between two elements, actions or ideas. Each one of these elements has what the other element requires and they both have a coincident homeostatic element. Complements sustain the weaknesses of the purpose to avoid the entropy produced by the action. When the homeostatic value can buffer the changes produced by the active function, the functionality/credibility zone is relatively stable. Mathematics. The Mathematics of the unicist logic was developed to define the field of the possibilities to influence a reality and the probabilities of being successful when doing so. The unicist mathematical solution is very simple. Considering the three dimensions that underlie a given reality, the integration of the three elements is given by their multiplication. What is being multiplied is: The purpose. The active function. The energy conservation function. Optimal functionality is considered as 1 and dysfunctionality is considered as 0. The credibility zone functions as a fuzzy set. The non-destructive pilot testing, when researching the concept of a reality, defines the validity of the credibility/functionality zone. The destructive testing defines the external “limit” of the credibility/functionality zone. Characteristics of reality are transformed into figures and the resulting figures are retransformed into characteristics. When analyzing a specific fact, the aesthetic of a specific coat, the credibility zone is given by the category of “coats”. Considering the categorical credibility zone, the perception of the aesthetics of the particular coat should be nearby 1 (one). But credibilities and functionalities are continuously moving. There are conjunctural movements, between the invariables “security” and “freedom”, and there are structural movements towards “expansion” or “contraction”. The structural movements that occur define the trend of a culture. “1” must be considered the optimum of a credibility or functionality. The optimum is placed at the external limit of the credibility/functionality zone driven by the existing trend. This is the point where the minimum energy is required to adapt to an environment. Declining environmental trends lead towards contraction. Evolving environmental trends lead towards expansion. Extreme contraction produces the implosion of reality and extreme expansion produces its explosion. Unicist Mathematics intended to give an answer to the question of the possibilities to succeed when a particular reality differs significantly from 1 (one). Differentiation may be caused by three reasons. 1. The active function is not functional enough. 2. The energy conservation is insufficient. 3. The purpose is far away from being fulfilled. The change of actions (through the active function) depends on the will of the individual to do so and on his success in the process. The change in the energy conservation function requires a previous change in the action principle that makes the conservation dysfunctional. The change of the purpose of a reality implies changing both the actions, to make it possible, and the energy conservation, to sustain a different purpose without changing the credibility/functionality zone. Thus the probability to succeed when a particular reality must be changed to adapt to an environment can be defined as: P(S) =  Purpose3 * Energy conservation function2 * Active function This shows how difficult it is to influence an environment when the specific action that is proposed differs from reality. When the distance between the purpose being proposed and the purpose of the environment is significant, the project is basically unachievable, because the necessary energy to change the environment is so high that is uneconomical. When the distance between the energy conservation function of a specific proposal differs significantly from the environment, the cost of influencing reality is extremely high and the possibilities of achieving adequate results are low. The only function that can be influenced with affordable costs is the active function. This is why innovations are only possible if the distance to the pre-existing reality is accessible without making structural changes. Operational aspects. The unicist logic is an integrative logic that always implies the “and” conjunction among its elements, which means a product among the values. These values are always “0” or “1”. Thus, when one of the values is zero, the value of the concept is also zero. It makes it non-existing. The Mathematics of the fuzzy logic is applicable to the operational concept. This mathematics of the fuzzy logic solves the problem of defining the myths where the verbs operate. It establishes the adverbs quite clearly. But in order to integrate the concept as a whole it is required to apprehend the taxonomy implicit in the dialectics and to understand the relative weight of the substantive, verbal and adverbial functions. When using the unicist logic to compare different alternatives, it is necessary to make a mathematical development that allows the comparison of such alternatives to come to a decision. Executive Committee NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.


The Discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature

Print Friendly

Text to Speech avaiable at the bottom

Evolution is Purpose Driven.

This research began in 1976 with the hypothesis that in nature there are mutations that are random but others that are driven by a purpose. If this hypothesis was confirmed and there were a purpose, the author concluded that there would have to be an intelligence that defined such purpose.

For this reason, he researched on the essential structure implicit in nature’s intelligence to be able to predict and exert influence on the evolution of complex adaptive systems when possible.

Charles Darwin demonstrated the adaptation process of species that, having the same structural constitution, developed adaptive changes to live in a certain environment. The hypothesis of the research was that these changes were driven by an intelligence that underlies nature.

He concluded that each living creature’s evolution is ruled by its ontogenetic intelligence, that defines it as unique both in its species and individuality and that the essential structure of this intelligence is integrated by a purpose, an active principle (entropic function) and an energy conservation principle.

The research was focused on the unified field of living beings. The basic assumption that sustains this development is that the evolution of living beings, their behaviors, actions and deeds are driven by the same logical structural framework.

This implies that there is an intelligence that defines the structural behavior of any entity that integrates this framework that allows predicting the behavior of all the entities where this intelligence is known.

The Objectives of the Research.

The objective of this research was to develop a technology that allowed predicting the evolution of specific aspects of complex adaptive systems and developing solutions to exert influence on such evolution.

The research dealt specifically with complex adaptive systems such as living beings, their behaviors, actions and deeds.

It is necessary to accept that dealing with the intelligence that underlies nature is a complex problem that is extremely abstract and can only be understood by using it in the real world.

This discovery made complex adaptive systems reasonable, understandable and predictable in those cases in which the structure of the intelligence that underlies their nature has been found.

This research process that began in 1976 was a step by step approach. It began with the development of what has been called the “three-dimensional multivariable analytical methodology” – that allowed apprehending and managing the nature of human actions and deeds – and ended when the Theory of Evolution was completed and the emulation of the organization of nature became possible.

The research began in the field of social, economic and behavioral sciences.

Then it evolved, driven by homologies with confirmed knowledge, towards life sciences and ended with physics to confirm the validity of the unified field. This process demanded almost 40 years and is still ongoing.

Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature, Unicist Ontology and Concepts.

You will find that this document deals with the ontogenetic intelligence of nature named concept and its structure, defined by the unicist ontology.

The ontogenetic intelligence of nature defines the nature of an entity. As such, its structure was named unicist ontology and the name given to this intelligence was concept.

The name concept was used because if “the concept of a concept” used in philosophy is studied, it becomes evident that the idea of something pretends to define its nature.

It has to be considered that the research of the intelligence that underlies nature needs to be measurable, that is why this could only be done in the unified field where the results were measurable.

This research has been developed using the methodology of complex adaptive system research where all the elements are integrated by the conjunction “and” and there are no univocal cause-effect relationships.

The ontogenetic intelligence of nature discovered defines that there are only two types of relationships in the world: a complementary relationship and a supplementary relationship, integrated in a triadic function.

This drove to the development of the unicist double dialectical approach that allows dealing with complex problems using a logical approach. The unicist double dialectical approach is a rational emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that allows apprehending the dynamics of evolution. This made the development of the Unicist Logic possible.

The Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature.

The unicist ontology of evolution explains and predicts the evolution of living beings, their produces and their actions in a unified field, ruled by concepts and their natural laws. These natural laws have been named as “Ontogenetic Intelligence”.

The research of the unicist ontology of evolution did not enter the field of the origin of life or the origin of the universe. The purpose of the research was to discover the origin of the rules of evolution, to diagnose and influence it.

The most relevant application fields are future research, strategy, institutional evolution and Man’s individual development and his learning process.

This theory enables the analysis of and influence upon complex realities. Its reliability has been proven in its application during the last three decades.

The development of this theory started in 1976 and ended in 2003 with the discovery of the origin of fallacies. Fallacies have been and remain a major obstacle to overcome for the understanding of institutions, countries and individuals.

The discovery of the structure of concepts ruling the evolution of living beings set the grounds for The Unicist Ontology of Evolution.

The theory fathoms into the most censored aspects of human behavior: into his own evolution. That is why it is a taboo, and must be treated as such.

The consideration that concepts define the ontogenetic intelligence of living beings is recent.

The consequence of this statement is that the intelligence of living beings is necessarily based on the double dialectic self-organized approach to reality.

Dysfunctionalities of the ontogenetic intelligence endanger the evolution of the living being.

The lack of the conservation principle fosters “explosion”, the lack of the action principle promotes “implosion”.

The applications of the unicist ontology of evolution to biological, individual, institutional and social forecasts were the fields were this theory was validated and falsified (at the level that is falsifiable).

This ontology approaches evolution in the world of possibilities to discover concepts and operates in the world of probabilities to influence them.

Ontogenetic Intelligence.

Ontogenetic intelligence defines the basic laws of evolution. It is a set of what can be called natural laws which rule the evolution of living beings.

It was researched in order to find an approach to forecast and influence evolution.

Ontogenetic intelligence is defined by two principles of nature:

1. The action principle that sustains growth and evolution. It is driven by expansion.

2. The energy conservation principle, which sustains survival and avoids involution. It is driven by contraction.

In the field of human behavior, the action principle gives birth to the verbal function, which makes the fulfillment of purposes possible. The entropy produced by action produces changes in the goal of purposes.

To avoid changes and sustain the purpose, the energy conservation principle produces a homeostasis. The homeostatic value complements the purpose and ensures that action occurs within the established limits.

But the consequence of this interaction is never deterministic. The change produced by the interaction of the living being with the environment produces evolution or involution.

In nature, both principles sustain the evolution of living beings. Their effects can be observed in bacteria, viruses, cells, and other living beings.

At a more operational level, besides the expansion and contraction principles, there are functions that provide security and functions that provide freedom to living beings. These functions are implicit in the upper level functions (expansion – contraction).

Ontogenetic intelligence provides the basic rules to adapt to an environment. It sustains the living being’s unstable equilibrium. When, for any reasons, the ontogenetic intelligence is inhibited, the living being loses its equilibrium and its survival is endangered.

These principles are active in individual beings and in the live environment they are part of.

Ontogenetic Principles.

Ontogenetic intelligence has two basic principles that influence evolution.

It supposes the existence of a purpose of the living being. On the one hand, there is an expansion principle and, on the other hand, there is a contraction principle.

Evolution is never in equilibrium. Considering a moment, every system is either in expansion or in contraction.

This integration of contraction and expansion to sustain a purpose defines the ontointelligence of a being.

The active function describes the verbal function that seeks the expansion of the living being.

Therefore, entropy is implicit. Where there is an action there might be entropy. Entropy is measured by the fulfillment of the purpose.

To avoid the entropic effect there is an adverbial function which sustains the purpose.

There is no causative relation between the conservation function and the active function (verbal function). They are integrated by the purpose of the living being.

Evolution implies an improvement of the adaptation to the environment.

When adaptation reaches an extreme level, it reaches the utopia point where there is no differentiation between the being and the environment, therefore the “individual being” disappears.

This is the effect of the instability zone 1, which works as a sort of “black hole”. It has the same effect as an implosion.

The information of the preceding individual disappears giving birth to a new identity within a more comprehensive unified field.

When individuals are in involution, they inevitably arrive at a level where they have to mutate to survive in some other way. They mutate or “die”.

This is the effect of what we call instability zone 2. The behavior of the individual loses its adaptive capacity and the effect is chaotic behavior. In such scenario, the individual seeks new ways to adapt to the environment.

Sometimes the individual is able to mutate, sometimes it simply explodes.

What has been described is the functioning of ontogenetic intelligence which we consider included in the meaning of the word concept.

The word concept has been used in the past with multiple meanings. But considering the root of the meaning it always refers to the “nature” of something.

That is why we use the word concept defining its ontogenetic intelligent structure which sustains the adaptive behavior of living beings.

Concepts.

Concepts describe the living creatures’ essences and their evolution laws. That is what we call their ontogenetic intelligence.

Living creatures possess intrinsic concepts. This means that these concepts exist in themselves and only need to be discovered.

On the other hand, inanimate beings have extrinsic concepts, which are deposited on them according to their functionality.

Concepts determine the ontological behavior of living creatures.

As there is a generic concept for each species that defines its purpose, its expansion action (entropy) and its conservation function, such concept is cross-cultural and timeless, as long as the species does not become extinct.

Functionality/Credibility Zone.

Intrinsic concepts are functional. They do not exist because someone believes them or not.

On the other hand, extrinsic concepts describe the ontology of a living being and depend, for their existence, on the fact that they are believed.

While intrinsic concepts are defined by their functionality zone, extrinsic concepts are defined by their credibility zone.

In both cases, concepts are not integrated by three different elements, they are “one”.

The Field of Possibilities.

Concepts define the field of possibilities of occurrence of events.

1. Intrinsic concepts define the possibilities of the nature of the entity. The behavior of a living being becomes influenceable if the knowledge of its concepts has been acquired.

2. Extrinsic concepts define the possibilities of inanimate entities. The building and use of inanimate entities becomes possible if the knowledge of their concept has been acquired.

3. Extrinsic concepts also define the possibilities of objects that are being built. Objects, as adaptive systems that need to produce results, are based on concepts that drive their functionality.

Concepts Behave as Strange Attractors.

Behavior oscillates, with higher or lower frequency, between expansion and contraction, and at the same time between security and freedom.

This double oscillation makes concepts behave as strange attractors. When a given behavior moves towards freedom, it will return seeking for security.

The amplitude or importance of the qualitative and quantitative modification does not necessarily determine the amplitude or importance of the next move.

The same phenomenon happens when moving towards expansion or contraction. Therefore, within the credibility zone behavior appears as chaotic, but following the patterns of the behavior of strange attractors.

Possibilities define the existence of a functionality/credibility zone while probabilities define the behavior within the functionality/credibility zone.

In intrinsic concepts, possibilities define the existence of a functionality zone but probabilities define the behavior within such zone.

In extrinsic concepts, possibilities define the existence of a credibility zone but probabilities define the behavior within such zone.

Complementation and Supplementation Laws.

The purpose, the conservation function and the active function of a concept are integrated by logical rules which sustain their unity.

While the purpose and the active function are sustained by the supplementation law, the purpose and the conservation function are integrated by the complementation law.

Supplementation Law.

It is a relation between elements with redundant purposes and verbal functions, having a different homeostatic element. One of the elements has a superior “myth” that challenges the evolution of reality.

Complementation Law.

It is an interdependent relation between two elements, actions or ideas. Each one of these elements has what the other element requires and they both have a coincident homeostatic element.

Complements sustain the weaknesses of the purpose to avoid the entropy produced by the action.

When the homeostatic value can buffer the changes produced by the active function, the functionality/credibility zone is relatively stable.

Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.

  Click to listen highlighted text! Evolution is Purpose Driven. This research began in 1976 with the hypothesis that in nature there are mutations that are random but others that are driven by a purpose. If this hypothesis was confirmed and there were a purpose, the author concluded that there would have to be an intelligence that defined such purpose. For this reason, he researched on the essential structure implicit in nature’s intelligence to be able to predict and exert influence on the evolution of complex adaptive systems when possible. Charles Darwin demonstrated the adaptation process of species that, having the same structural constitution, developed adaptive changes to live in a certain environment. The hypothesis of the research was that these changes were driven by an intelligence that underlies nature. He concluded that each living creature’s evolution is ruled by its ontogenetic intelligence, that defines it as unique both in its species and individuality and that the essential structure of this intelligence is integrated by a purpose, an active principle (entropic function) and an energy conservation principle. The research was focused on the unified field of living beings. The basic assumption that sustains this development is that the evolution of living beings, their behaviors, actions and deeds are driven by the same logical structural framework. This implies that there is an intelligence that defines the structural behavior of any entity that integrates this framework that allows predicting the behavior of all the entities where this intelligence is known. The Objectives of the Research. The objective of this research was to develop a technology that allowed predicting the evolution of specific aspects of complex adaptive systems and developing solutions to exert influence on such evolution. The research dealt specifically with complex adaptive systems such as living beings, their behaviors, actions and deeds. It is necessary to accept that dealing with the intelligence that underlies nature is a complex problem that is extremely abstract and can only be understood by using it in the real world. This discovery made complex adaptive systems reasonable, understandable and predictable in those cases in which the structure of the intelligence that underlies their nature has been found. This research process that began in 1976 was a step by step approach. It began with the development of what has been called the “three-dimensional multivariable analytical methodology” – that allowed apprehending and managing the nature of human actions and deeds – and ended when the Theory of Evolution was completed and the emulation of the organization of nature became possible. The research began in the field of social, economic and behavioral sciences. Then it evolved, driven by homologies with confirmed knowledge, towards life sciences and ended with physics to confirm the validity of the unified field. This process demanded almost 40 years and is still ongoing. Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature, Unicist Ontology and Concepts. You will find that this document deals with the ontogenetic intelligence of nature named concept and its structure, defined by the unicist ontology. The ontogenetic intelligence of nature defines the nature of an entity. As such, its structure was named unicist ontology and the name given to this intelligence was concept. The name concept was used because if “the concept of a concept” used in philosophy is studied, it becomes evident that the idea of something pretends to define its nature. It has to be considered that the research of the intelligence that underlies nature needs to be measurable, that is why this could only be done in the unified field where the results were measurable. This research has been developed using the methodology of complex adaptive system research where all the elements are integrated by the conjunction “and” and there are no univocal cause-effect relationships. The ontogenetic intelligence of nature discovered defines that there are only two types of relationships in the world: a complementary relationship and a supplementary relationship, integrated in a triadic function. This drove to the development of the unicist double dialectical approach that allows dealing with complex problems using a logical approach. The unicist double dialectical approach is a rational emulation of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that allows apprehending the dynamics of evolution. This made the development of the Unicist Logic possible. The Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature. The unicist ontology of evolution explains and predicts the evolution of living beings, their produces and their actions in a unified field, ruled by concepts and their natural laws. These natural laws have been named as “Ontogenetic Intelligence”. The research of the unicist ontology of evolution did not enter the field of the origin of life or the origin of the universe. The purpose of the research was to discover the origin of the rules of evolution, to diagnose and influence it. The most relevant application fields are future research, strategy, institutional evolution and Man’s individual development and his learning process. This theory enables the analysis of and influence upon complex realities. Its reliability has been proven in its application during the last three decades. The development of this theory started in 1976 and ended in 2003 with the discovery of the origin of fallacies. Fallacies have been and remain a major obstacle to overcome for the understanding of institutions, countries and individuals. The discovery of the structure of concepts ruling the evolution of living beings set the grounds for The Unicist Ontology of Evolution. The theory fathoms into the most censored aspects of human behavior: into his own evolution. That is why it is a taboo, and must be treated as such. The consideration that concepts define the ontogenetic intelligence of living beings is recent. The consequence of this statement is that the intelligence of living beings is necessarily based on the double dialectic self-organized approach to reality. Dysfunctionalities of the ontogenetic intelligence endanger the evolution of the living being. The lack of the conservation principle fosters “explosion”, the lack of the action principle promotes “implosion”. The applications of the unicist ontology of evolution to biological, individual, institutional and social forecasts were the fields were this theory was validated and falsified (at the level that is falsifiable). This ontology approaches evolution in the world of possibilities to discover concepts and operates in the world of probabilities to influence them. Ontogenetic Intelligence. Ontogenetic intelligence defines the basic laws of evolution. It is a set of what can be called natural laws which rule the evolution of living beings. It was researched in order to find an approach to forecast and influence evolution. Ontogenetic intelligence is defined by two principles of nature: 1. The action principle that sustains growth and evolution. It is driven by expansion. 2. The energy conservation principle, which sustains survival and avoids involution. It is driven by contraction. In the field of human behavior, the action principle gives birth to the verbal function, which makes the fulfillment of purposes possible. The entropy produced by action produces changes in the goal of purposes. To avoid changes and sustain the purpose, the energy conservation principle produces a homeostasis. The homeostatic value complements the purpose and ensures that action occurs within the established limits. But the consequence of this interaction is never deterministic. The change produced by the interaction of the living being with the environment produces evolution or involution. In nature, both principles sustain the evolution of living beings. Their effects can be observed in bacteria, viruses, cells, and other living beings. At a more operational level, besides the expansion and contraction principles, there are functions that provide security and functions that provide freedom to living beings. These functions are implicit in the upper level functions (expansion – contraction). Ontogenetic intelligence provides the basic rules to adapt to an environment. It sustains the living being’s unstable equilibrium. When, for any reasons, the ontogenetic intelligence is inhibited, the living being loses its equilibrium and its survival is endangered. These principles are active in individual beings and in the live environment they are part of. Ontogenetic Principles. Ontogenetic intelligence has two basic principles that influence evolution. It supposes the existence of a purpose of the living being. On the one hand, there is an expansion principle and, on the other hand, there is a contraction principle. Evolution is never in equilibrium. Considering a moment, every system is either in expansion or in contraction. This integration of contraction and expansion to sustain a purpose defines the ontointelligence of a being. The active function describes the verbal function that seeks the expansion of the living being. Therefore, entropy is implicit. Where there is an action there might be entropy. Entropy is measured by the fulfillment of the purpose. To avoid the entropic effect there is an adverbial function which sustains the purpose. There is no causative relation between the conservation function and the active function (verbal function). They are integrated by the purpose of the living being. Evolution implies an improvement of the adaptation to the environment. When adaptation reaches an extreme level, it reaches the utopia point where there is no differentiation between the being and the environment, therefore the “individual being” disappears. This is the effect of the instability zone 1, which works as a sort of “black hole”. It has the same effect as an implosion. The information of the preceding individual disappears giving birth to a new identity within a more comprehensive unified field. When individuals are in involution, they inevitably arrive at a level where they have to mutate to survive in some other way. They mutate or “die”. This is the effect of what we call instability zone 2. The behavior of the individual loses its adaptive capacity and the effect is chaotic behavior. In such scenario, the individual seeks new ways to adapt to the environment. Sometimes the individual is able to mutate, sometimes it simply explodes. What has been described is the functioning of ontogenetic intelligence which we consider included in the meaning of the word concept. The word concept has been used in the past with multiple meanings. But considering the root of the meaning it always refers to the “nature” of something. That is why we use the word concept defining its ontogenetic intelligent structure which sustains the adaptive behavior of living beings. Concepts. Concepts describe the living creatures’ essences and their evolution laws. That is what we call their ontogenetic intelligence. Living creatures possess intrinsic concepts. This means that these concepts exist in themselves and only need to be discovered. On the other hand, inanimate beings have extrinsic concepts, which are deposited on them according to their functionality. Concepts determine the ontological behavior of living creatures. As there is a generic concept for each species that defines its purpose, its expansion action (entropy) and its conservation function, such concept is cross-cultural and timeless, as long as the species does not become extinct. Functionality/Credibility Zone. Intrinsic concepts are functional. They do not exist because someone believes them or not. On the other hand, extrinsic concepts describe the ontology of a living being and depend, for their existence, on the fact that they are believed. While intrinsic concepts are defined by their functionality zone, extrinsic concepts are defined by their credibility zone. In both cases, concepts are not integrated by three different elements, they are “one”. The Field of Possibilities. Concepts define the field of possibilities of occurrence of events. 1. Intrinsic concepts define the possibilities of the nature of the entity. The behavior of a living being becomes influenceable if the knowledge of its concepts has been acquired. 2. Extrinsic concepts define the possibilities of inanimate entities. The building and use of inanimate entities becomes possible if the knowledge of their concept has been acquired. 3. Extrinsic concepts also define the possibilities of objects that are being built. Objects, as adaptive systems that need to produce results, are based on concepts that drive their functionality. Concepts Behave as Strange Attractors. Behavior oscillates, with higher or lower frequency, between expansion and contraction, and at the same time between security and freedom. This double oscillation makes concepts behave as strange attractors. When a given behavior moves towards freedom, it will return seeking for security. The amplitude or importance of the qualitative and quantitative modification does not necessarily determine the amplitude or importance of the next move. The same phenomenon happens when moving towards expansion or contraction. Therefore, within the credibility zone behavior appears as chaotic, but following the patterns of the behavior of strange attractors. Possibilities define the existence of a functionality/credibility zone while probabilities define the behavior within the functionality/credibility zone. In intrinsic concepts, possibilities define the existence of a functionality zone but probabilities define the behavior within such zone. In extrinsic concepts, possibilities define the existence of a credibility zone but probabilities define the behavior within such zone. Complementation and Supplementation Laws. The purpose, the conservation function and the active function of a concept are integrated by logical rules which sustain their unity. While the purpose and the active function are sustained by the supplementation law, the purpose and the conservation function are integrated by the complementation law. Supplementation Law. It is a relation between elements with redundant purposes and verbal functions, having a different homeostatic element. One of the elements has a superior “myth” that challenges the evolution of reality. Complementation Law. It is an interdependent relation between two elements, actions or ideas. Each one of these elements has what the other element requires and they both have a coincident homeostatic element. Complements sustain the weaknesses of the purpose to avoid the entropy produced by the action. When the homeostatic value can buffer the changes produced by the active function, the functionality/credibility zone is relatively stable. Executive Committee NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.


Building the Guiding Idea in Adults´ Learning Process

Print Friendly

The Research on the Ontology of Human Learning developed at The Unicist Research Institute showed that the development of the guiding idea in the learning process of adults is the decisive step to begin the learning process. If there is no clear guiding idea, the learning process does not even start.

The Unicist Ontology of the Guiding Idea of Adults' Learning

The guiding idea of what is being learned is defined by providing an essential answer to the following questions in relation to the object of learning:

What is it?

The definition of the category of the “thing” that needs to be apprehended is the first step to apprehend its nature.

What is it for?

The “What for” of a concept that an adult aims to learn sets the functionality of what is being learned. If the learner truly understands the “what for” of something, the information on this functionality could be used in the future as it would be stored in the long-term memory associated with a concrete use and added value.

What is the differentiation within the category?

Once the essence of an object of learning is apprehended (what is it?) and the functionality of this concept is known (what is it for?), then the individual needs to approach the differentiation of this object of learning with other objects within the same category. Adults are only willing to learn if they know that the solution is “the best of the class”.

 

The Building of the Guiding Idea: The Key to Learning

The building of the guiding idea is the starting point for any learning process. Learning is one of the most freedom oriented actions. No one can truly force anyone to learn, no one can truly stop anyone from learning. For this learning process to take place, the learner makes an individual decision.

When the guiding idea is not defined, the learning does not begin, when the 3 questions are not validated, and are taken as truths, preconcepts and fallacies prevail, but when they are answered and taken in functional terms, a new door opens for the learning of adults.

And as Sun Tzu stated: Every battle is won or lost before it is even fought. The answer given to the essential questions of “What is it?”, “What is for?” and “What is the difference with others in the same category?” define the success or failure of the learning process.   Click to listen highlighted text! The Research on the Ontology of Human Learning developed at The Unicist Research Institute showed that the development of the guiding idea in the learning process of adults is the decisive step to begin the learning process. If there is no clear guiding idea, the learning process does not even start. The guiding idea of what is being learned is defined by providing an essential answer to the following questions in relation to the object of learning: What is it? The definition of the category of the “thing” that needs to be apprehended is the first step to apprehend its nature. What is it for? The “What for” of a concept that an adult aims to learn sets the functionality of what is being learned. If the learner truly understands the “what for” of something, the information on this functionality could be used in the future as it would be stored in the long-term memory associated with a concrete use and added value. What is the differentiation within the category? Once the essence of an object of learning is apprehended (what is it?) and the functionality of this concept is known (what is it for?), then the individual needs to approach the differentiation of this object of learning with other objects within the same category. Adults are only willing to learn if they know that the solution is “the best of the class”.   The Building of the Guiding Idea: The Key to Learning The building of the guiding idea is the starting point for any learning process. Learning is one of the most freedom oriented actions. No one can truly force anyone to learn, no one can truly stop anyone from learning. For this learning process to take place, the learner makes an individual decision. When the guiding idea is not defined, the learning does not begin, when the 3 questions are not validated, and are taken as truths, preconcepts and fallacies prevail, but when they are answered and taken in functional terms, a new door opens for the learning of adults. And as Sun Tzu stated: Every battle is won or lost before it is even fought. The answer given to the essential questions of “What is it?”, “What is for?” and “What is the difference with others in the same category?” define the success or failure of the learning process.


Conceptual Management – A Logical Approach to Businesses

Print Friendly

The conceptual approach to business requires that people need to know “why” something is happening. This is unnecessary at an operational level, but is a basic question when dealing with strategic approaches. The “know why” is driven by a logical approach to businesses that allows managing their concepts making them reasonable, understandable and provable.

Unicist Ontology of Conceptual ThinkingWhen the boundaries of a business are being expanded, individuals need to apprehend the concept that is behind its operational aspects in order to influence a new environment. This implies apprehending the ontology (nature) of its concept and its dynamics.

On the one hand, the conceptual approach to business became possible based on the discovery of the structure of concepts, defined by a purpose, an active and entropic function and an energy conservation function, which allowed apprehending the nature of facts and actions (unicist ontology).*

On the other hand, the discovery that the concepts people have in mind work as behavioral objects that drive their behavior made this conceptual approach necessary to deal with strategic approaches.

The Origin of Conceptual Thinking

The endless “Why?” question posed by children (nearby 3 years old) is what allows establishing the neural network needed by a person to apprehend and manage concepts. This process starts when children begin to look for the origin of those things they are interested in.

This endless “why” questioning has three main benefits:

  1. It sustains the development of the neural network that allows dealing with the origin of things and not only with the operational aspects.
  2. It expands the language of the child driving her/him to deal with an implicit integrative, fuzzy and predicate logic.
  3. It provides the “why” that allows children to approach their games, which develop their systemic thinking approach.

Conceptual diagnoses, conceptual design and conceptual management became possible using the unicist logical approach, which made “concepts” tangible and provided the structural functional approach to develop business diagnoses, strategies and architecture.

*Based on the research on Conceptualization developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

The Unicist Research Institute

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.org/talents/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/turi.pdf

  Click to listen highlighted text! The conceptual approach to business requires that people need to know “why” something is happening. This is unnecessary at an operational level, but is a basic question when dealing with strategic approaches. The “know why” is driven by a logical approach to businesses that allows managing their concepts making them reasonable, understandable and provable. When the boundaries of a business are being expanded, individuals need to apprehend the concept that is behind its operational aspects in order to influence a new environment. This implies apprehending the ontology (nature) of its concept and its dynamics. On the one hand, the conceptual approach to business became possible based on the discovery of the structure of concepts, defined by a purpose, an active and entropic function and an energy conservation function, which allowed apprehending the nature of facts and actions (unicist ontology).* On the other hand, the discovery that the concepts people have in mind work as behavioral objects that drive their behavior made this conceptual approach necessary to deal with strategic approaches. The Origin of Conceptual Thinking The endless “Why?” question posed by children (nearby 3 years old) is what allows establishing the neural network needed by a person to apprehend and manage concepts. This process starts when children begin to look for the origin of those things they are interested in. This endless “why” questioning has three main benefits: It sustains the development of the neural network that allows dealing with the origin of things and not only with the operational aspects. It expands the language of the child driving her/him to deal with an implicit integrative, fuzzy and predicate logic. It provides the “why” that allows children to approach their games, which develop their systemic thinking approach. Conceptual diagnoses, conceptual design and conceptual management became possible using the unicist logical approach, which made “concepts” tangible and provided the structural functional approach to develop business diagnoses, strategies and architecture. *Based on the research on Conceptualization developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute. The Unicist Research Institute NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. https://www.unicist.org/talents/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/turi.pdf


Unicist Conceptual Knowledge Catalyzes Businesses

Print Friendly

Operational knowledge unavoidably competes with the knowledge of the participants. Unicist conceptual knowledge widens the field of action and thus provides additional value of aspects that exceed the field of operational work problems.

It necessarily begins being opaque for operational use until people begin to perceive that it is extremely useful to expand the possibilities of businesses and allows multiplying the successful experiences and inhibiting the repetition of failures.

Accessing unicist conceptual approaches requires exposing their logical structures, going beyond intuition, by using a “drop by drop” communication until some of the drops become necessary.

From that moment on the same communication is perceived as a systematic value adding process.

The catalyzing process is produced by the possibility of accessing a superior level of knowledge that provides a logical structured context of an activity. Without this logical structure any superior knowledge is perceived as opaque and unbearable.

This possibility of widening the boundaries is the catalyst in itself.

Diana Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. http://www.unicist.org/repo/#Unicist


Unicist Superior Education in Business

Print Friendly

“It is easier to avoid complex problems than to learn to manage them.”

Superior Education deals with adults

A learning context is required before a learning process begins. Learning processes in adults require the existence of a real problem to be solved. When there is no real problem to be solved, the learning process has no substance and the “knowledge” cannot be stored in the long term memory because it is meaningless.

Adults Learnng ContextThe maximal strategy of a learning process is given by the need of improvement. The existence of a driver and the real need for improvement provides the will the individual “uses” as a catalyst in order to face and solve the problems of his/her learning process.

Achieving the minimum strategy implies paying the prices to ensure learning. The price to be paid is that the individual needs to leave things aside in order to access the comprehension of a new approach.

Learning implies leaving things aside. If the problem can be solved using the preexisting knowledge, there is no need for learning because the problem does not exist.

Therefore, it is implicit in a learning process for unsolved problems that the individual leaves aside the preexisting approach and enters the comprehension of the new approach without cutting it down to what s/he knew.

Adults only do so when they really need to solve a problem. Improvement is the active function and learning the energy conservation function.

Only people who need to improve will be able to learn. People who enter in a learning process without having a real need to improve in order to solve real problems just enter in self-fulfilling activities.

Conclusions

When these conditions are unfulfilled, learning processes are driven by evaluation and qualification systems, substituting the goal of improving real actions by overcoming an obstacle in order to obtain a personal benefit.

When these conditions are given a genuine learning process can begin.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.org/talents/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/turi.pdf


Active inaction destroys relationships and businesses

Print Friendly

Active inaction works as an “ethical business virus” that destroys any productive relationship in organizations. Active inaction is a natural defense in the case of cultures and people who are not able or willing to assume the responsibility for generating added value. It is part of the lifestyle in underdeveloped environments. See:
http://www.unicist.org/complexity-sciences/index.php/unicist-papers-search/4-human-intelligence-and-behavior/52-conceptual-structure-of-active-inaction

Active InactionA paradigmatic trigger for active inaction is “innovation blindness”. People who are affected by “innovation blindness”, need to install the virus of “active inaction” to blame others for what they cannot “see”. See:
http://www.unicist.org/complexity-sciences/index.php/unicist-papers-search/4-human-intelligence-and-behavior/177-conceptual-structure-of-innovation-blindness

It adopts infinite shapes that are driven by the need of avoiding responsibility for results and are sustained by the actions of transferring costs and risks to others.

As it is known, people who do not manage the concepts of what they are doing cannot know what is possible to be achieved. Therefore, they cannot assume the responsibility for producing results.

Active inaction destroys personal relationships in organizations and works as an “ethical business virus” that seeks for the destruction of the ethics of an organization. Those individuals that install this “virus” have the feeling of impunity that is sustained by the fact that “they did nothing”. See:
http://www.unicist.org/complexity-sciences/index.php/unicist-papers-search/8-business-and-institutions/179-conceptual-structure-of-business-viruses

To sustain their impunity, they seek for accomplices in order to demonstrate that their inaction is not their problem, but a problem of the organization. Through this “accomplice pact” the virus can expand instantaneously in organizations.

It needs to be clarified that inaction, in a world that is moving, is an action in itself. It is the unique action that produces an extreme friction provoking the “implosion” of what is being done and the destruction of the ethics of the organization.

All actions, with exception of the “active inaction”, can be “lubricated” in order to have a smooth productive process. It is impossible to support something that is not being done.

That is why “active inaction” is unacceptable in the business world.

Diana Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.org/talents/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/turi.pdf


The Unicist Ontology of Language

Print Friendly

Language as a driver and inhibitor of human intelligence

The objective of the research was to find a way to forecast human behavior based on the use of languages and to define the natural languages necessary to approach different realities in different contexts. Language can be defined as a system of communication and of reasoning which makes use of representations, metaphors and grammar. Language is the code that humans use in conscious thinking processes that allows them emulating reality in mind. The research on languages and semiotics  began at the end of the seventies at The Unicist Research Institute.

The Unicist Ontology of Language

Facts and future human actions are implicit in the use of language.

It is also the mask of a culture’s ethics. A language is both an individual expression and the expression of the culture in which an individual lives and tries to adapt.

The ethics that underlies a culture is represented in the structure of the use of the language, in colloquial expressions, in the aphorisms of such language and in its metaphors.

This synthesis introduces the unicist ontology of language that is used in the development of behavioral forecasts.

A language may be rationally filtered, it can be self-censored or it can be foreseen in its hypothetical consequences.

But the implicit unicist ontology of language cannot be hidden if the one who is hearing truly listens.

Language as the structure for conscious reasoning

Language as Reasoning StructureLanguages allow structuring the conscious reasoning process of individuals. Babies do have reasoning processes that are based on “intuition”, and have a very low level of abstraction capacity.  Abstraction evolves with the evolution of an individual.

The functionality of language, depending on the type of thought, sustains the human adaptation processes. It must be considered that language is based on dualistic thinking which is natural to the human neural system.

That is why syncretic and analytic languages provide the security framework to communication.

On the other hand, factual and synthetic languages foster freedom-oriented approaches to integrate reasoning processes with the external reality.

Language as the code for communication

Communication is the most evident function of a language. Internal or external actions of an individual or groups of individuals are implicitly promoted by communication.

Communication ConceptThe unicist ontological structure of interpersonal communication includes:

  1. An adaptation process to generate added value to the environment and obtain the counterpart.
  2. A process of introjective empathy. The individual that is communicating has to introject the object of communication in order to apprehend reality.
  3. A process of “influential-sympathy”. This requires that individuals have to “vibrate” in a syntonic way with the environment. Having “influential-sympathy” requires exerting influence on the syntonic “vibration” with the environment to ensure the possibility to share experiences with others.
  4. A participation process. When pastime is the goal, participation processes have to be the implicit purpose of communication.
  5. A “projective-empathic” process, which is the starting point of any communication. Communication begins with the projection of our beliefs on the external reality.
  6. A process of “emotive-sympathy”, in which both sides discover that they might share the same emotions.

Language as the ethical mask of a culture

Ethical Intelligence Language is the central tool of a culture. That is what we call its “ethical mask”. The habits and myths are subjacent in a language, including the functional projective and introjective mechanisms that are used by the culture.

A language that is used in different cultures has divergent attributes influenced by each culture’s social ethics.

Ethics establishes the rules of reasoning processes and sustains communication. The ethical mask of languages establishes the link between language and ethics. This establishes the type of the complementation of the participants of a communication process.

A communication between peers requires managing the same level of ethics.

There is a language for each level of ethics. The ethical mask materializes the utopia implicit in each level of ethics.

The Unicist Ontology of the Functionality of Words

Interpersonal written or spoken language requires the use of words which, according to their meaning, define the functionality of communication.

This description explains the functionality implicit in the use of words.

Words’ FunctionalityThe results of this research help individuals to diagnose reality based on the facts implicit in what is said.

Conceptually, based on their meaning, there are four different “types” of words:

  1. Empty words: are those words that have no rational meaning in the context they are being used. They have multiple non structured meanings with no shareable purpose. Adjectives that have no adverbial function are empty words.
  2. Hollow words: are those words that are able to integrate in a unique sense the meanings given to them by emitters and receivers. In these words there is an implicit tacit purpose underlying.
  3. Full  words: are the words with a unique irrefutable meaning for those involved in a communication process. They are the solid container where hollow words fit in.
  4. Ambiguous words: are the words having two different meanings. One of the meanings is functional to the communication process and the other is dysfunctional.

The Unicist Ontology of Ambiguous Language

It is a language functional for the description of essences in order to approach the integration of reality in its possible oneness. It uses relational logic to operate in the field of ambiguity.

Ambiguous LanguageIt allows simplifying reality by approaching it using homologies. Ambiguous language and synthetic language are used as synonyms. When synthetic language is used properly, receivers are able to apprehend the essences of a situation, fact or action.

Ambiguous language is necessary to influence adaptive environments. Ambiguous language has no value in the field of operational problems.

The objective of ambiguous language is to generate added value based on a dialogue within the limits of the available information on the problem being faced.

There are two different types of dialogues when using ambiguous language: the dialogue with the facts and the dialogue with the people who are participating in the solution.

Pilot tests are the way to dialogue with facts using ambiguous language.

The Unicist Ontology of Figurative Communication

The use of language in a communication requires accepting the fact that in order to do something there has to exist real consensus.

Figurative Communication Words are naturally filtered before they are spoken or written. This filter can build the necessary fallacies to think that some communication is happening while in fact a different communication is occurring.

That is why communication can only be measured in the results produced by the real consensus.

The achievement of real consensus might imply knowing the structural differences between the parts that are communicating. In this case it allows knowing the consequences of the differences.

The use of figurative communication allows avoiding the dysfunctional filtering of communications, providing messages that drive naturally towards real consensus.

That is why people who cannot assume a responsibility of something, cannot understand figurative communication.

The purpose of figurative communication is to achieve real consensus which means achieving a rational, emotional and conceptual consensus.

Achieving real consensus requires solving the conflicts that are generated by interests, needs, beliefs, lack of knowledge, etc.

The Unicist Ontology of Messages

The purpose of a message is to deliver information. This purpose is achieved by adding value to the receiver and the energy conservation function is given by the credibility of the message.

MessageThe “maximal strategy” of a message is sustained by the value it adds. The “minimum strategy” is given by its credibility.

The value added allows the message to be remembered. The meaningfulness of  data is a condition in order to store them in the long term memory of an individual. The information might be remembered, but it can only be used if it is meaningful.

A message is an object that needs to be carefully defined if the message has multiple users or receivers. When it is a univocal message, the design has to respond to the possibilities that the information included can be decoded by the receiver.

Information without credibility cannot be integrated unless it is based on a stimulus of human weaknesses. Gossip is an example of this case. The lack of credibility generates doubt in the mind of the receiver and doubt provokes inaction.

Conclusion

The conscious ideas an individual has are structured using the reasoning framework of his language and using the semantic and the syntax that represent the language’s intrinsic logic.

From an ontological point of view there are two types of linguistic structures to deal with communication and reasoning:

  1. “Backward chaining”, which approach reality from the end to the beginning.
  2. Forward chaining, which approach reality from the beginning to the end of the process.

Both approaches have to be used in order to have a non-fallacious perception of reality.  Languages have different functional structures depending on their backward or forward orientation.

The syntax of a language defines the natural approach of a culture in order to adapt to reality. .

In every language there is an implicit reasoning structure. Therefore there are languages with attributes for artistic expression, for hard-sciences, for soft-sciences, for dualistic philosophies, for integrative philosophies, and so on. The language in which assertions are expressed, generates the cultural preconceptions on their validity.

Academic Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm.
https://www.unicist.org/talents/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/turi.pdf