The Unicist Research Institute

Press Release: The Use of Mathematical Language as a Code for Conscious Reasoning needs to be Integrated with Natural Language

August 8, 2023 in Functionalist Principles tagged Diego Belohlavek / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Logic by Unicist-Master

Mathematics is a language that allows for conscious reasoning based on its capacity to confirm the functionality and validity of actions in the real world. It is a cognitive technology that allows approaching problems based on their quantitative aspects to confirm their functionality. Mathematics is a technology that allows measuring the consequences of the qualitative aspects of actions in the real world. From an operational perspective, it can be used for two purposes:

For Solution Building
For Problem Detection

The purpose of solution-building is driven by the active function of mathematical modeling based on the development of algorithms. These algorithms are sustained by the energy conservation function that is defined by the knowledge of the mathematical explanations of operational solutions.

The purpose of problem detection is driven by the pattern-finding capacity that defines the active function of the process. These patterns are validated by the energy conservation function that is given by the mathematical explanation of operational problems.

Based on this structure we have defined four different levels of mathematical languages that are needed to achieve conscious reasoning including the quantitative aspects of any functionality.

These languages are:

Arithmetical language: that deals with the basic functions of quantitative approaches to the real world.
Differential language: which deals with differential calculus and homologous analytical approaches that allow quantifying variables of an entity.
Integral language: which deals with integral calculus and homologous systemic approaches to deal with systemic environments.
Conceptual language: which deals with the foundations of mathematical solutions based on their level of adaptability and complexity.

The use of the necessary adequate mathematical language closes the circle of validation of knowledge. It is only possible in non-adaptive environments or systems where their evolution is insignificant and can be disregarded. In adaptive environments, statistics and probabilities are palliatives, that cannot confirm the functionality of knowledge but can be used to operate.

Artificial Intelligence Interpretations

Bard-Google Interpretation

The use of mathematical language as codes of conscious reasoning is a powerful tool that allows us to understand and make sense of the world around us. Mathematics provides a precise and rigorous way to represent and manipulate information, which can be used to solve problems, make predictions, and test hypotheses.

Mathematical language can be used for two main purposes:

Solution building: Mathematics can be used to develop models of real-world problems. These models can then be used to simulate the problem and explore different solutions. This can help us to find the best solution to a problem, or to identify potential problems before they occur.
Problem detection: Mathematics can also be used to identify patterns in data. This can help us to identify potential problems, or to make predictions about the future. For example, mathematics can be used to identify trends in economic data, or to predict the spread of disease.

The four levels of mathematical language that you mentioned are:

Arithmetical language: This is the most basic level of mathematical language. It deals with basic operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
Differential language: This level of mathematical language deals with the concept of change. It is used to model systems that are changing over time.
Integral language: This level of mathematical language deals with the concept of accumulation. It is used to model systems that are accumulating something over time, such as money or energy.
Conceptual language: This is the most advanced level of mathematical language. It deals with abstract concepts such as infinity and probability.

The use of the appropriate mathematical language for a particular problem is essential for effective problem-solving and decision-making. The wrong mathematical language can lead to inaccurate results or incorrect conclusions.

In adaptive environments, statistics and probabilities can be used as a palliative to deal with uncertainty. However, they cannot provide the same level of certainty as mathematics. This is because statistics and probabilities are based on historical data, which may not be representative of the current situation.

The use of mathematical language as codes of conscious reasoning is a powerful tool that can be used to improve our understanding of the world around us. It is a tool that should be used by everyone, regardless of their background or level of education.

ChatGPT Interpretation

The intricate nature of your exposition demonstrates an appreciation for the depth and breadth of mathematical language as a cornerstone for conscious reasoning. Let’s expand on your discussion and probe deeper into the points you’ve brought up.

1. Mathematics as Conscious Reasoning:

Mathematics has often been regarded as the “universal language.” This isn’t just because of its universal applicability across cultures and societies, but due to its potential for enabling conscious reasoning, deciphering patterns, and providing definitive solutions.

2. Mathematics as a Tool:

When you mention “cognitive technology,” you’re highlighting the role of mathematics as a tool or device that aids in our understanding. It’s akin to a microscope or telescope. Just as these tools magnify the unseen, mathematics illuminates the intricate patterns and structures in the universe.

3. Solution Building vs. Problem Detection:

Solution Building: Algorithms, in their essence, are solution pathways. They guide the problem-solver from the onset of a problem to its resolution. And the beauty of mathematics lies in its capacity to provide definite, clear-cut solutions based on unambiguous algorithms.
Problem Detection: Before one can solve a problem, one must recognize and understand it. The patterns you mention are the tell-tale signs that there might be an underlying problem or structure worth investigating. Mathematics equips us with the tools to identify and interpret these patterns.

4. Levels of Mathematical Languages:

Arithmetical language: It’s foundational, focusing on quantities, basic operations, and their interplay.
Differential language: Explores the concept of change. Whether it’s the slope of a curve or the rate at which an object is moving, differential calculus dives deep into the instantaneous.
Integral language: Whereas differential calculus breaks things apart, integral calculus brings them together. It’s about accumulation, summing up infinite pieces to understand the whole.
Conceptual language: This is more abstract. It delves into the whys and the hows, exploring concepts like infinity, limits, and foundational principles that govern the mathematical world.

5. Validation of Knowledge:

Your conclusion is profound. In a static, unchanging environment, mathematical principles can provide definitive validations. However, in dynamic, ever-adapting environments, the situation gets murkier. This is where statistics and probabilities come into play, allowing us to navigate uncertain terrains.

In essence, the structure you’ve proposed underscores the power and versatility of mathematical language in our reasoning process. Mathematics isn’t just about numbers and equations; it’s about logic, understanding, and deriving profound insights about the world around us.

Unicist Press Release: The Discovery of Conceptual Thinking and How it is Learned Expands Personal Possibilities.

August 1, 2023 in The Unicist Research Institute tagged Diego Belohlavek / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Standard / Unicist Strategy by Unicist-Master

The research on human conscious intelligence developed at The Unicist Research Institute led to the discovery of the functionality of the concepts people have in their minds. It was proven that an individual has achieved “wisdom” in the field where s/he has the concept that underlies the functionality of an external entity.

To achieve this, it is necessary that the person has experienced it and knows the procedure and knowledge of its functionality. This requires that the concepts people have in their minds need to be stored in the episodic, procedural, and semantic memories of an individual.

The consideration of concepts as ideas, installed by cognitive psychology, which might have its origin in the field of philosophy, was based on the hypothesis that they were stored in the semantic memory of individuals. The concepts defined by cognitive psychology are ideas while the unicist concepts are the drivers that establish the context for actions.

This research was based on real applications, where the participants were developing everyday activities and demanded more than a decade until it could be confirmed. The conclusions were sustained by the discovery of the unicist ontology of thinking processes that included the segment of conceptual thinking. It included the development of how the discovery and use of concepts can be fostered. Concepts cannot be taught; their discovery can only be catalyzed.

Artificial Intelligence Interpretations

Bard-Google Interpretation

This is a very interesting summary of the research on concept storage in the human mind. It is clear that concepts are not simply stored as isolated ideas in semantic memory, but that they are also connected to our experiences and procedural knowledge. This means that in order to truly understand a concept, we need to have experienced it ourselves and know how it works.

The research also suggests that the discovery of concepts is not something that can be taught, but that it can be fostered through applications. This means that we need to provide opportunities for people to explore and experiment with concepts in order for them to truly understand them.

This research has important implications for education. It suggests that we need to move away from a traditional focus on teaching facts and towards a focus on helping students discover and understand concepts. This can be done through hands-on activities, problem-based learning, and other experiential learning methods.

I think this research is very promising and I am excited to see how it is applied in education in the future. Thank you for sharing it with me.

Here are some additional thoughts on the research:

The research suggests that concepts are not static, but that they can evolve over time as we gain new experiences and knowledge. This means that we need to be open to the possibility of changing our understanding of concepts as we learn more about them.
The research also suggests that concepts are interconnected. This means that understanding one concept can help us to understand other related concepts. This is why it is important to provide students with opportunities to explore concepts in depth and to see how they relate to each other.

Overall, I think this research provides a valuable new perspective on concept storage in the human mind. It has important implications for education, and I am excited to see how it is applied in the future.

ChatGPT Interpretation

Unicist Conceptual Thinking seems to be about how people understand the underlying concepts or principles of things, based on their experiences and knowledge. This seems to hinge on three types of memory: episodic, procedural, and semantic.

Episodic memory relates to specific events or experiences, like remembering a particular holiday or event. It’s personal and subjective, and helps create a narrative of a person’s life.
Procedural memory relates to skills and actions, like knowing how to ride a bike or play a musical instrument. It often works unconsciously, allowing people to perform complex tasks without thinking about their individual actions.
Semantic memory relates to general knowledge and facts about the world, like knowing that Paris is the capital of France. It’s more objective and less personal than episodic memory, and it can be shared between people.

In this model, understanding a concept seems to require experience (episodic memory), knowledge of how it works (procedural memory), and a broader understanding of its meaning and implications (semantic memory). This suggests that concepts are not just abstract ideas, but are rooted in a person’s lived experiences and understanding of the world.

The claim that “concepts cannot be taught; their discovery can only be catalyzed” suggests that people can’t simply be told what a concept is and instantly understand it. Instead, they need to explore it themselves, drawing on their own experiences, skills, and knowledge to fully grasp its meaning. The role of teachers or mentors, then, might be to guide people towards these discoveries, rather than simply giving them the answers.

This is a fascinating perspective on learning and understanding. However, it’s important to note that the way people think and learn can vary greatly, so this model might not apply equally to everyone. Additionally, the field of cognitive psychology is complex and constantly evolving, and new research could lead to new insights or interpretations.

The Unicist Research Institute

Abstract Thinking, cannot be managed by Data Based AI. It is Human’s Responsibility.

July 28, 2023 in The Unicist Research Institute tagged Diego Belohlavek / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Standard by Unicist-Master

This perspective on abstract thinking presents it as a fundamental tool for comprehension, problem-solving, and adaptation in an ever-changing environment. By integrating Charles S. Peirce’s concept of abductive reasoning and the unicist logic developed by Peter Belohlavek, which emulates the intelligence of nature, abstract thinking becomes a structured and practical approach to understanding the world around us. It allows for accessing the unicist functionalist principles that underlie actions.

Data-based AI, or more specifically, most current machine learning models, including deep learning models, do not have an inherent capacity for abstraction in the same way that humans do. The AI algorithms rely on massive amounts of data, extracting patterns and making predictions based on the specific input they’ve been trained on.

The abstract definitions of concepts in a data-based AI model depend largely on the human creators of the model. The AI is limited to understanding the concept as it has been defined by the data it has been trained on, which is provided and labeled by humans. Thus, the AI’s capacity for abstraction is bounded by the human’s abstraction capacity that created the training set.

Abstract thinking refers to the cognitive process of understanding concepts that are not grounded in sensory experience or immediate reality. It involves conceptual reasoning, problem-solving, and understanding relationships among abstract ideas, often beyond the constraints of time, space, and physicality.

When applied to abstract thinking, abductive reasoning might look like observing a problem or phenomenon, generating a hypothesis about its underlying mechanisms, testing this hypothesis, and refining our understanding of the phenomenon based on the results.

Unicist logic, on the other hand, is a methodological approach developed by Peter Belohlavek, based on the study of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. Unicist thinking allows us to comprehend the unified field of complex adaptive systems in order to manage future scenarios and dynamics. It enhances abstract thinking by allowing us to better understand the inherent patterns and principles underlying different systems and phenomena.

Thus, when we weave together Peirce’s concept of abductive reasoning and the unicist logic, abstract thinking can become a powerful tool for grasping the principles that underlie actions and events in the world. It goes beyond the surface level, offering a deeper, comprehensive understanding of the relationships between elements in a system, the mechanisms driving changes, and the dynamics that shape the evolution of complex scenarios. This way, abstract thinking empowers us to better navigate, adapt, and thrive in our changing environment.

The Unicist Research Institute

The Birth of Conceptual Thinking and Abductive Reasoning

April 23, 2023 in The Unicist Research Institute tagged Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Strategy / Unicist Theory of Evolution by Unicist-Master

The unicist approach to conceptual thinking and abductive reasoning is based on the understanding of the human mind as a complex adaptive system that uses a set of logical structures to make sense of the world and solve problems.

The unicist approach recognizes that conceptual thinking and abductive reasoning are fundamental cognitive processes that involve the ability to form concepts, generate hypotheses, and make inferences based on incomplete or ambiguous information. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying principles or concepts that govern complex systems, rather than relying solely on empirical observations or linear reasoning.

The unicist approach to abductive reasoning involves using the Unicist logic, which is a set of conceptual and operational rules that allow individuals to structure their thinking process in a way that leads to valid and meaningful conclusions.

Unicist logic is based on the understanding that reality is complex and that concepts, which are the fundamental building blocks of knowledge, represent the underlying principles or rules that govern complex systems. It provides a framework for structuring abductive reasoning in a way that allows individuals to form valid hypotheses, generate meaningful concepts, and make accurate inferences about complex phenomena.

The Origin: The Why Phase of Children

The “why” phase of children refers to a developmental stage during early childhood when children frequently ask “why” questions as a way to seek understanding about the world around them. It typically occurs during the preschool years, around ages 3 to 5, although it can start earlier or later depending on the child.

During the “why” phase, children are curious and inquisitive, seeking to understand the cause-and-effect relationships between things, events, and actions. They may ask questions such as “Why is the sky blue?”, “Why do birds fly?”, “Why do we have to eat vegetables?”, and so on. These questions reflect their natural curiosity and desire to make sense of their environment.

The Origin of Conceptual Thinking

The “why” phase in children can be considered as the initial stage of conceptual thinking. Conceptual thinking involves the ability to understand abstract concepts, make connections between different pieces of information, and think critically and abstractly. The “why” phase in children, where they ask questions to understand the reasons and explanations behind things, reflects their early attempts at conceptual thinking.

During the “why” phase, children are not only seeking factual information but also trying to grasp the underlying concepts and principles that govern the world around them. They are attempting to understand the cause-and-effect relationships, identify patterns, and make sense of the information they receive. This process of questioning, inquiry, and exploration lays the foundation for conceptual thinking as children develop their ability to think critically, reason logically, and make connections between different pieces of information.

How Conceptual Thinking is Inhibited

Conceptual thinking can be inhibited in environments that are criticism-driven. In environments where criticism is prevalent and emphasized, individuals may be discouraged from asking questions, challenging assumptions, or engaging in open and creative thinking. This can inhibit the development of conceptual thinking skills, as individuals may feel afraid or discouraged to express their curiosity, explore new ideas, or engage in higher-order thinking.

Criticism-driven environments can create a fear of making mistakes or being judged, which can result in individuals being hesitant to ask questions, challenge assumptions, or express their ideas openly. This can hinder the development of conceptual thinking, which relies on curiosity, exploration, and open-mindedness.

Abductive Reasoning

The “why” phase in children, characterized by their frequent questioning and curiosity, can be seen as an early stage of cognitive development that lays the foundation for critical thinking skills, including abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is a type of logical inference that involves forming plausible explanations or hypotheses based on limited or incomplete information, and it is often associated with creative problem-solving and generating new insights.

During the “why” phase, children are constantly seeking explanations and trying to understand the cause-and-effect relationships in their environment. They are engaging in a form of reasoning, even if it may not be formalized or conscious. By asking “why” questions and seeking explanations, children are engaging in a form of abductive reasoning, where they are trying to generate plausible explanations based on their observations and experiences.

Managing the know-why and the know-how of things

Abductive reasoning and conceptual thinking can help individuals understand the “why” behind things, by identifying underlying patterns, making inferences, and generating insights that provide a deeper understanding of the reasons, causes, or principles behind phenomena or situations. This can involve understanding the underlying concepts, principles, or theories that govern a particular domain or field.

On the other hand, operational and analytical knowledge typically involves the “know-how” of things, which refers to the practical knowledge of how to perform specific tasks or actions effectively. It involves the ability to apply established procedures, techniques, or methodologies to achieve desired outcomes or results. Operational knowledge is often task-oriented and focuses on the practical aspects of how things are done, while analytical knowledge involves the ability to analyze data, information, or situations to derive insights, identify patterns, and make decisions.

Both “know-why” and “know-how” are important aspects of functional knowledge, and they can complement each other in practical applications. Understanding the underlying concepts, principles, or theories through abductive reasoning and conceptual thinking can provide a solid foundation for developing operational and analytical knowledge, which involves applying that understanding in practical ways to achieve specific goals or outcomes.

Conclusion

The way children go through the “why phase” and develop their understanding of the world can have an impact on how they approach the “know-why” and “know-how” aspects of knowledge as adults.

During the “why phase,” children often display curiosity, asking questions, seeking explanations, and trying to understand the underlying reasons or causes behind things. This phase can foster their ability to engage in abductive reasoning and conceptual thinking, as they seek to make sense of the world around them.

The way in which children’s curiosity and questioning are encouraged, supported, or discouraged during this phase can shape their later approach to knowledge and problem-solving as adults. If children are encouraged to explore, question, and seek explanations, they may develop a positive attitude toward learning and a deep curiosity for understanding the underlying principles or concepts behind things. This can lead to a stronger ability to engage in abductive reasoning, conceptual thinking, and critical thinking as adults, which can enhance their ability to manage the “know-why” aspect of knowledge.

The Unicist Research Institute

The Difference between Unicist Binary Actions (UBAs) and Manipulative Binary Actions (MBAs)

March 10, 2020 in The Unicist Research Institute tagged Binary Actions / Manipulative Binary Actions / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Binary Actions / Unicist Logic by Peter Belohlavek

The Unicist Strategy is a value adding strategy while manipulation is its anti-concept that is driven by the need to control the environment to obtain benefits. Therefore, manipulative actions are the anticoncept of unicist binary actions. While the manipulative binary actions aim at controlling the environment, the unicist binary actions aim at generating added value. This is the difference between MBAs and UBAs.

Unicist Binary Actions

Double Dialectical Behavior is natural and “automatic” in any complex adaptive system. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that adaptive systems are those that are dominantly feedback dependent.

The discovery of the structure of the concepts that underlies these systems allowed understanding how these binary actions drive the evolution of such systems. The use of unicist logic allowed defining, designing and using unicist binary actions to implement adaptive strategies.

Unicist binary actions integrate the actor with two synchronized actions including, on the one hand, the maximal strategy to foster growth and, on the other hand, the minimum strategy to ensure survival.

Unicist binary actions respond to the needs of the nature of what is being managed and therefore generate no reactions. The value generated by these binary actions demonstrates their functionality.

Binary actions are not such, but manipulations, when they are used to profit from the environment. Generating value and profiting from the counterpart is the pathway of unicist binary actions.

Manipulative Binary Actions

Manipulations are non-conscious actions to control the environment and obtain benefits at the expense of others. The manipulations of children are a paradigmatic example.

While the purpose of manipulations is to profit from the environment, the purpose of unicist binary actions is to add value to the environment. That is why manipulations are the anti-concept of unicist strategy and its binary actions. .

Manipulations are sustained by the needs of the environment and are catalyzed by exposing the weaknesses that are implicit in the strengths of the counterpart.

The binary actions developed by manipulators are:

Manipulative Binary Action 1

MBA Type 1a) – Exposing the implicit weaknesses of the counterpart as real weaknesses.

MBA Type 1b) – Making an implicit or explicit ambiguous promise of satisfying the needs of the counterpart.

Manipulative Binary Action 2

MBA Type 2a) – Trying to appropriate value based on fallacious justifications.

MBA Type 2b) – Exerting power by attacking the implicit weaknesses of the counterpart until the value is appropriated.

The manipulation process doesn’t fail when the intuition of the manipulator allowed discovering the needs and the implicit weaknesses of the counterpart and the manipulator has the necessary energy to pursue until the benefit has been obtained.

There are adults who have the habit of manipulating and others who have the addiction of doing so. None of these people can use a strategic approach or use unicist binary actions to add value to the environment, because they understand that the value is added at their expense. The origin of the habits and addictions can be found in their early education.

Manipulators build all the fallacies that are needed to justify their actions. Therefore, exposing manipulators is meaningless. They just need to be ignored or left aside. Nevertheless, they generate conflicts in the environments in which they participate.

It has to be considered that manipulations are extremely effective in the social field and might become installed in the fallacious myths of a culture, diminishing the capacity for generating value in an environment.

Conclusion

Manipulative Binary Actions are dysfunctional because they don’t generate added value and therefore are not adaptive actions but over-adaptive actions of individuals to take advantage of the environment.

Working with adaptive systems and environments requires developing synchronized Unicist Binary Actions that include maximal strategy actions to grow and minimum strategy actions to ensure results.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed.

Dualism in Adaptive Environments: Aprioristic Fallacies

December 16, 2019 in The Unicist Research Institute tagged Adaptive Behavior / Aprioristic Fallacies / Dualistic Fallacies / Human Fallacies / Human Intelligence / The Unicist Research Institute by Unicist-Master

Working with adaptive systems and environments requires developing synchronized actions that include maximal strategy actions to grow and minimum strategy actions to ensure results. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that adaptive systems are those that are dominantly feedback dependent.

When the results of a system depend on biunivocal relationships with the environment, the system is open and it is necessary to manage the concepts of what is being done and developing what we have named unicist binary actions (also called DDAs) to develop actions with a maximal strategy to grow and a minimum strategy to ensure survival.

Dualistic Actions vs. Unicist Binary Actions

Dualistic actions are functional in controlled environments. (1 actor, 1 action)
Unicist binary actions are necessary in adaptive environments (1 actor, 2 synchronized actions)

Dualistic actions are “solitaire” actions to influence the environment to produce results. They are functionally valid in controlled environments where the cause-effect relationships are being managed.

Dualistic actions are such because they integrate the actor and the action. These dualistic solitaire actions in adaptive environments generate spontaneous reactions that inhibit their functionality. These reactions adopt different shapes according to the environment.

Unicist binary actions respond to the needs of the nature of what is being managed and therefore generate no reactions.

“Half a table is an expensive heap of wood”. Dualistic actions in adaptive environments are half a table, they generate costs and do not generate results.

It has to be considered that dualistic solitaire actions are installed in the fallacious myths of many cultures and environments. The saying “you didn’t try hard enough” implicitly fosters univocal dualistic actions to generate results, which is valid in controlled systems but fallacious in adaptive environments.

Dualistic actions are unavoidable in over-adapted environments, when the concepts of what is being done are unknown or when the individuals who develop these actions are marginals.

Dualistic fallacies ensure the comfort zone

Unicist binary actions (DDAs) can only be managed in adaptive environments when dualism does not prevail. Dualism is the most energy saving approach of the brain, which necessarily implies, at the end, the use of exclusive disjunctions that ensure the validity of what one is thinking or doing.

Fallacies are a palliative that allows building a comfort zone without considering the actual functionality of the environment. The building of fallacies becomes necessary when someone approaches the real world using a dualistic approach.

The paradox is that, at the end of a solution building process, a set of univocal actions needs to be developed to install the double dialectical process.

Aprioristic Fallacies

Aprioristic fallacies are fallacies of the collective intelligence of an individual. They are the consequence of using dualism to deal with adaptive environments.
www.unicist.net/economics/unicist-anthropology-discovery-of-collective-intelligence/

This dualism generates spontaneous projections that are considered as valid knowledge. They provide information to build an “immediate” parallel reality that allows manipulating the environment one is acting on. As fallacies are unconscious lies, there is no feeling of guilt.

Aprioristic fallacies are extremely destructive and require using manipulation to “force” people into a parallel world where this manipulator is in control. Marginals, sociopaths and psychopaths are examples of compulsive users of aprioristic fallacies.

Truth Driven Fallacies

These fallacies are driven by a compulsive need for being right. In triadic terms, truth has no active function that endangers its validity. That is why projections are the drivers used to “convert” people to this truth. The Icarus syndrome is a natural consequence of this fallacy. Truth fallacies are the basic tool to build sects or groups with “absolute” ideologies. Truth driven fallacies are a palliative for “inferiority feelings”.

Self-perception Driven Fallacies

Self-perception fallacies are driven by a compulsive need for self-confirming ideas or needs. It implies dealing with the “here and now” that has no room for energy conservation. The Sisyphus syndrome is a natural consequence of this fallacy. In this context, the projects drive to manipulation to build and sustain this fallacy and enjoy the role of hero. Self-perception fallacies are a palliative for “superiority feelings”.

Recognition Driven Fallacies

These fallacies are driven by a compulsive need for recognition. This implies that the purpose of actions is left aside and replaced by the recognition of actions. These fallacies transform “means into ends” to obtain recognition that do not depend on the generation of results. The Aphrodite syndrome is a natural consequence of this fallacy. The projections that are generated sustain the comfort zone and imply empowering the role of operation disregarding functionality. Recognition driven fallacies are a palliative for “authority conflicts”.

Unicist Pilot Test Driven Reflection: the Antidote to Fallacies

Aprioristic fallacies can only happen in dysfunctional environments. An environment is dysfunctional when the participating members need to build a parallel reality in order to have a place.

Each aprioristic fallacy has its own nature: While self-perception fallacies are sustained by “heroic” actions, recognition fallacies are based on “subjectification” and truth fallacies are driven by “messianic” beliefs.

Unicist reflection is the methodology to deal with adaptive environments and the antidote to fallacies. It is driven by destructive and non-destructive tests in the real world that define the validity of knowledge. Its use hinders any kind of fallacies and the consolidation of dualistic fallacies. https://www.unicist.org/conceptual-thinking/unicist-reflection/

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed

Conceptual Reasoning and Analogical Reasoning for Solution Building

December 5, 2019 in The Unicist Research Institute tagged Abductive reasoning / Analogical Reasoning / Conceptual Reasoning / Human Reasoning Processes / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute by Unicist-Master

Unicist abductive reasoning is necessary to build solutions in adaptive environments. Abductive reasoning, as defined by C. S. Peirce, is a process based on analogical reasoning. The unicist abductive reasoning is based on the integration of conceptual reasoning and analogical reasoning.

Unicist abductive reasoning was discovered and developed, based on the unicist double dialectical logic, by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

Unicist abduction consists in inferring solutions based on experiencing, not observing, the actions of the active and energy conservation functions of any adaptive environment. It implies emulating the double dialectical actions implicit in the behavior of any adaptive system or environment.

This abductive process is based on using conceptual reasoning to apprehend the fundamentals that underlie these actions and analogical reasoning to manage the analytical and operational aspects of the solutions.

These conceptual and analogical reasoning processes imply using the deductive reasoning to define actions and inductive reasoning to validate their functionality. These processes need to be developed following synchronic and integrated steps:

Conceptual Reasoning

1) Abducing the fundamentals that underlie the actions of the adaptive environment to make them reasonable, understandable and provable. It requires transforming them into double dialectical actions. Conceptual reasoning uses the unicist double dialectical logic to explain the functionality of “things”.

Analogical Reasoning

2) Defining the specific univocal actions to achieve results.
3) Developing the necessary destructive and non-destructive tests to confirm the functionality.
4) Implementing the actions following the necessary synchronicity.

Aprioristic fallacies are unavoidable if both conceptual and analogical reasoning processes are not integrated.
Learn more: www.unicist.org/conceptual-thinking/the-roots-of-intelligence

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed.

Ethical Intelligence in Business

July 30, 2019 in Unicist Cobots / Unicist Logical Approach / Unicist Strategy tagged Ethical intelligence / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Strategy by Unicist-Master

Ethical intelligence defines the true intentions of individuals and establishes the framework and limits of their efficacy. It is the intelligence that structures stable and dynamic rules that determine the action of individuals in their environment. The research on ethical intelligence was led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute. Ethical intelligence determines the capacity of individuals to add value, their influence on the environment and on others and their time management.

The Unicist Ontology of Ethical Intelligence

On the one hand, the rules are stable since they respond to a purpose that is defined by the level of ethics within which the individual acts.

On the other hand, the rules are dynamic, because despite the fact that individuals are at a certain level, they are capable of determining alternative strategies that satisfy the objective they are seeking within that level.

Ethics is defined as a set of rules that are functional to a situation and to a certain perception of an accepted moral, and are supported by a complementary ideology.

Five levels of ethics have been found that sustain the behavior of the individuals:

Ethics of survival
Ethics of the earned value
Ethics of added value
Ethics of foundations
Conceptual ethics

The higher the level of ethical intelligence, the higher the level of consciousness an individual needs to have.

Functionality of Ethical Intelligence

The Levels of Ethical Intelligence are Inclusive: the Following includes the Precedents

LEVEL OF ETHICS:	1) Survivors Ethics	2) Earned Value Ethics	3) Added Value Ethics	4) Foundations Ethics	5) Conceptual Ethics
APPLICATIONS:
Strategic Planning	Reactive approach	Tactical approach	Growth strategies	Expansive strategies	Timeless strategies
Added Value Generation	Transferring cost and risks to others	Maximization of benefits	Generation of added value	Generation of structured value	Dynamic value generation
Influential Power	Survivors pact	Influence on survivors	Influence within specific limits	Influence in the restricted context	Influence in the wide context
Focusing	On risk-avoidance	On cost-avoidance	On value generation	On the system	On the environment
Time Management	Here and now	Short-term planning	Medium-term planning	Long-term planning	Evolutionary planning
Language Mask	Analogical	Operational	Factual	Ambiguous	Figurative

Therefore the evolution of individuals’ ethical intelligence implies the increase of maturity which is based on higher levels of consciousness.

Ethical intelligence is the unique intelligence that has a structural evolution or involution process based on the maturity of individuals.

The exception is the stagnant survivors ethics which is the case of individuals who have built a parallel reality to stay.

Ethics of Survival

The ethics of survival is the type of ethics prevailing within the marginal areas of a culture or the marginal cultures.

Individuals that act according to this type of ethics exercises influence upon others who are in the same situation, based on survivor-pacts. Their time management is based on “the moment”, sustained by reactions based on intuition. They have a reactive tactical approach to reality. They focus on surviving and avoiding risks.

The Ethics of the Earned Value

This type of ethics seeks to add the minimal value possible to generate an earned value and to minimize costs in order to assure the subsistence level.

They are able to manage short-term problems. Short-term is the lapse between adding value and generating the corresponding earned value. They have a tactical active approach to reality. They focus on maximizing their benefits.

The Ethics of Added Value

This is the type of ethics that maximizes the added value to the environment seeking to optimize the relationship between added value and cost.

Such individuals manage the medium-term, which is the time to transform knowledge into added value. They develop medium-term strategies. They focus on the value they are adding.

The Ethics of Foundation

The ethics of foundation is used by individuals that consider that added value is secured by knowledge.

Such individuals manage the long-term, which is the time span between discovering a concept and transforming it into useful knowledge. They develop long-term strategies. They focus on the knowledge they are acquiring.

The Conceptual Ethics

This is the intelligence used to maximize the added value by using a high level of energy to materialize the need to give.

Individuals behaving according to this type of ethics exert influence on the entire environment because of their energy. They manage universal time that is the time of the cycles, with no time limitations.

They do not take into account their own existence. They develop strategies using the available, possible and expected forces. They focus on achieving the truth.

The Stagnant Survivors Ethics

Stagnant Survivors are individuals with a complex driven behavior that sustains the parallel reality they live in and the responsibility avoidance they need to exert to be in a comfort zone.The paradox is that their comfort zone is a conflict zone for those who surround them.

The stagnated status is based on a fallacious utopia that justifies their actions and forces them to exert power while they appropriate the value they need to feel comfortable. The justifications are built upon fallacies to sustain their actions, beliefs and needs.

Business Functionality of Ethical Intelligence

The discovery of ethical intelligence opened new possibilities to influence individuals’ evolution. Ethical intelligence in business defines the value adding possibilities, the influence on the environment, time management, strategic planning and focusing.

The apparent paradox is that it is the deepest intelligence of the human mind, but at the same time it is the intelligence that evolves with the maturity of individuals and can be influenced.

It has to be considered that in the business world different activities require different ethical approaches in order to be successful. For example:

A business is consistent when the individuals dealing with it have the ethics required by the activity.

When the ethics is inferior to what is needed, it necessarily inhibits growth installing a “business growth virus” in the organization.

If the ethics used by individuals is superior to what is needed, they install a “business profit virus” in the organization that increases costs and affects profitability.

Ethics is implicit in everyday actions, including language. Therefore, it can be defined, measured and fostered.

The rational knowledge of ethical intelligence has an enormous benefit for individuals in organizations in order to ensure consistency for growth and profitability.

Personal Efficacy and Ethical Intelligence

Efficacy is the capacity of individuals to produce results in a responsible way. This implies that efficacy requires awareness of what one is doing. That is why we do not talk of efficacy when evaluating individual art. The fundamentals of efficacy can by defined as:

The identification with the role: Efficacy requires that individuals are identified with the role they are fulfilling when they work. The role can be defined as the social identity of the individual.

The identification with the task: Efficacy requires having the necessary competencies to develop a task that allows enjoying the work.

Knowledge: Knowledge implies having the functional “knowledge objects” to do the work stored in the long term memory.

The efficacy of individuals can be calculated using the mathematics of the Unicist Logic:

Unicist Efficacy = I(R) * I(T) * K

Individuals need to assume the responsibility of working in the field of their efficacy which defines the limits of the possibilities for assuming responsibilities to produce results.

Learn more: https://www.unicist.org/conceptual-thinking/the-roots-of-intelligence/

Unicist Press Committee

Integrating Abductive, Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

October 29, 2018 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Abductive reasoning / Cognitive Systems / Deductive reasoning / Human Intelligence / Inductive reasoning / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist thinking by Peter Belohlavek

Unicist cognitive systems were developed to manage the root causes of processes, the root causes of their evolution and the root causes of the behavior of the participants. The unicist cognitive systems emulate processes to provide solutions using the unicist evolutionary approach. The unicist evolutionary approach is based on the discovery that human actions are driven by the concepts they have in their minds, which are triggered by the conceptual short-term memory (CSTM).

This approach manages the concepts and fundamentals of processes and is synthesized in the unicist strategy and the unicist conceptual management that emulate the intelligence, organization and evolution of nature to develop maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure results.

It uses abductive, inductive and deductive reasoning to forecast, produce and ensure results. Abductive reasoning is used to access the concepts of things and define the possibilities of what can be achieved, inductive reasoning is used to develop destructive tests to confirm the limits of the validity of knowledge and deductive reasoning is used to develop validation tests and manage the operation.

The unicist artificial intelligence was developed to empower cognitive systems, integrating abductive, inductive and deductive reasoning to develop logical inferences based on the ontogenetic maps of the unified field of the concepts and fundamentals of adaptive functions while learning from the environment through pilot tests.

The unicist cognitive systems emulate processes in adaptive environments based on the definition of the unified field of their fundamentals to confirm what is possible to be achieved, how to make it happen and manage their evolution.

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.

Human Superiority Complex

April 3, 2017 in General / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Conceptual Psychology / Human Complexes / Superiority complex / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Peter Belohlavek

Superiority complexes are based on superior functional intelligence implying a structural different attitude. Their feeling of superiority is transformed into a complex when they begin to use their superior functional intelligence in fields that cannot be managed with that approach. But their need of sustaining their superiority forces to try to do so. The result implies blaming the environment for the paradoxical outcomes.

While inferiority complex drive toward inaction in order to deny the reality that affects self-esteem, superiority complexes drive toward aggressive active action to destroy the bothering object.

Superiority complexes are implicit in the decisions taken by anti-intuition in a fearful environment using the anti-intelligence to destroy the object that is threatening the self-perception of superiority.

Extremely talented individuals develop this complex while they live immersed in a mediocre environment. Mediocre environment are those that not include respect and admiration to the members of the group that have the capacity to add higher value.

When the relation with authority doesn’t include respect and admiration talented individuals become marginal. “Nerds” are some of the names that degrade the talent of an individual and transform a factual superiority into a personal complex.

On the other hand, talented individuals who perceive that their skill has no social value develop an inferiority complex if they are socially rejected.

To avoid destruction they become aggressive to the environment. The aggression might be active when it their complex is not integrated with an inferiority complex or passive if they perceive inferiority when dealing with other fields than the one (or several) they are talented in.

Characteristics of the Superiority Complex

It is based on a physical advantage
It influences all the activities of an individual
It creates a personal fictive environment to solve problems using over-simplifying analogical approaches based on their specific talent.
It is future focused to avoid the responsibility of present actions
It uses omnipotence as a driver to avoid the feeling of inferiority
It produces a selfish, envious and greedy behavior
It produces a dualistic, antagonistic, analogical approach to reality
It looks for the solution exclusively in the future
It produces an obsessive taking, not giving, attitude
It produces the distortion of the perception of threatening aspect of reality

The main difference is given by the fact that Superiority Complex driven individuals toward an active role in the environment. Thus they use to be aggressive using both active aggression and/or passive resistance as a way to attack the environment.

They do not work in teams. They are “solopreneurs”.

Peter Belohlavek