THE MANAGER AS A TEACHER: SELECTED ASPECTS OF STIMULATION OF SCIENTIFIC THINKING

THE MANAGER AS A TEACHER: SELECTED ASPECTS OF STIMULATION OF SCIENTIFIC THINKING

RUSSIAN
ACADEMY OF GOVERNMENT

SERVICE AT
THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIAN

FEDERATION

***

INSTITUTE OF
INCREASE OF QUALIFICATION

OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

 

 

 

ATTESTATION
WORK

 

THE MANAGER
AS A TEACHER:

SELECTED
ASPECTS

OF
STIMULATION OF SCIENTIFIC THINKING

Author: Vladislav
I. Kaganovskiy,

student of
the Group # 02.313

of
professional re-training

in sphere «HR
management»

MOSCOW

2006

“Wars are won by school
teacher”

Otto von
Bismark

 

Selected aspects of stimulation of scientific
thinking

As is generally known,
science and education are one of strategic resources of the state,
one of fundamental forms of culture of civilization, as well as competitive
advantage of every individual. Global discoveries of modern life occur both deep
in and at the junction of various sciences, and at that, often and often the more
unusual the combination of sciences is, the wider range of scientific prospects
is promised by non-standard conspectus of their combination, for example, biology
and electronics, philology and mathematics, etc. Discoveries in one area
stimulate development in other spheres of science as well. Scientific
development of a society is a programmable and predictable phenomenon,
and this issue is specifically dealt by the futurology science. Modern techniques
of pedagogy, psychology, medicine  and other sciences do not only enable orientation
and informational “pumping” of human brain, but also the formation of an
individual’s character optimally suitable for the role of scientist. Unlike a computer,
any human being has intuition — the element of thinking so far in no way
replaceable (although some developments in this sphere are coming into being). Narrow
specialization of scientists tapers the scope of their activity and is
explained by an immense volume of information required for modern scientist.
This problem is being solved (partially though) through a variety of actions –
intellectualization of computers, “simplification” of information (its reduction
to short, but data intensive/high-capacity formulas and formulations),
application of psycho-technologies. Psycho-technologies (mnemonics, educational
games, hypnopaedia, (auto-) hypnosis, propaganda and advertising methods and
techniques, including technotronic and pharmacological /nootropic preparations/,
etc.) make it possible to solve the following problem. A “black box” concept
applied in computer science designates a system into which the chaotic
information is entered, and in a little while a version, hypothesis or theory
is produced. A human being represents (with some reservations though) such a
system. Information processing occurs consciously and subconsciously based on
certain rules (program). The more information processing rules we enter, the fewer
number of degrees of freedom remains in the system. Hence, it is desirable to
enter the very basic axioms. Differences in programs (even mere default — but
without lack of key information) form differences in opinions and argumentation.
The longer the period of program operation is (including based on internal biological
clock), the greater the effect one can expect. The provability of success is
directly proportional to the quantity of samples/tests, hence it is desirable
to build in basic mechanisms of scientific thinking at the earliest age possible
in a maximum wide audience and to stimulate their active work, and in certain
time intervals make evaluation and update of “programs” of thinking. “Comprehension
by an individual of new skills occurs only step-wise. Transition between two following
mental conditions takes place: “I’ll never understand how this can be done and
I’ll never be able to do it” and “it is so obvious that I can’t understand what
needs to be explained here”. Except for early childhood, the leaps of this kind
occur when mastering
reading and mastering writing, mastering all standard extensions
of set of numbers (fractional, negative, rational numbers, but not complex
numbers), when mastering the concept of infinitesimal value and its consequences
(the limits), differentiation, when mastering integration, complex of specific abilities forming the
phenomenon  of information generating (in other words, in the course of transition
from studying science or art to purposeful/conscious professional  creative
work). We hereby note that at any of these stages, for the reasons not quite
clear to us, the leap may not occur. It means that certain ability has not turned
into a stage of subconscious professional application and cannot be used randomly
by an individual for the solution of problems he/she faces. At that, the required
algorithm may be well known. In other words, an individual knows letters. He/she
knows how to write them. He/she can form words from them. He/she can write a sentence.
But! This work would require all his/her intellectual and mainly physical
effort.  For the reason that all resources of the brain are spent for the
process of writing, errors are inevitable. It is obvious that despite formal
literacy (the presence of knowledge of algorithm) an individual cannot be
engaged in any activity for which the ability to write is one of the basic or
at least essential skills. Similar state of an individual is widely known in
modern pedagogy and is called functional illiteracy. Similarly, one can speak of
functional inability to integrate (quite a frequent reason for the exclusion of
the 1st and 2nd grade students from physical and mathematical departments). Curiously
enough, at higher levels the leap does not occur so often, to the extent that it
is even considered normal. The formula: “An excellent student, but failed to
make proper choice of vocation. Well, he’s not a physicist by virtue of thinking
– well, that’s the way” (the leap allowing to mechanically employ specific
style of thinking / physical in this case / did not occur). As to automatic
creativity, these concepts in general are considered disconnected, and individuals
for whom the process of creation of new essentialities in science and culture
is the ordinary professional work not demanding special strain of effort are
named geniuses. However, a child sick with functional illiteracy would perceive
his peer who has mastered writing to the extent of being able of doing it
without looking into a writing-book, a genius, too! Thus, we arrive at the
conclusion that creativity at the level of simple genius is basically
accessible to everyone. Modern education translates to pupils’ knowledge (of
which, according to research, 90 % is being well and almost immediately
forgotten) and very limited number of skills which would in a step-wise manner move
the individual to the following stage of intellectual or physical development. One
should know right well that endless school classes and home work, exhausting
sports trainings are no more than eternal “throwing of cube” in the hope that lucky
number will come out – in the hope of a “click”. And the “click” may occur at
the first dash. It may never occur as well. Accordingly, the philosophy “repetition
is the mother of learning” in effect adds up to a “trial-and-error method”
which has been for a long time and fairly branded as such by TRIZists (the
followers of Inventive Problems Solution Theory). As a matter of fact, the
uneven nature of transition between “in”-and “out”- states at the moment of “click”
suggests that it is a question of structural transformation of mentality. That
is, “click” requires destruction of a structure (a pattern of thought, a
picture of the world) and creation of another one in which a new skill is
included “hardwarily” to be used automatically. Restrictions stimulate internal
activity. It is proven that creative task “Draw something” without setting pre-determined
conditions with restrictions is carried out less productively and less originally
than the task: “Draw an unusual animal with a pencil during 30 minutes” (Sergey
Pereslegin). Required personal qualities – traits of character /temperamental
attributes/ may be divided into four conventional groups: necessary, desirable,
undesirable and inadmissible. Knowledge can be divided into two groups: means
and ways of information processing (including philosophy, logic, mathematics,
etc.), the so-called meta-skills or meta-knowledge/ which are universal and
applicable in any field of activity), and the subject (subjects) matter per se.
From the view point of methodology all methods of scientific knowledge can be
divided into five basic groups: 1. Philosophical methods. These include
dialectics and metaphysics. 2. General scientific (general logical) approaches
and research methods — analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction,
abstraction, generalization, idealization, analogy, modeling, stochastic-statistical
methods, systemic approach,
etc. 3. Special-scientific methods: totality
of techniques, research methods used in one or another field of knowledge. 4. Disciplinary methods, i.e. a set of methods
applied in one or another
discipline. 5. Methods of interdisciplinary research – a set
of several synthetic, integrative methods generated mainly at the
cross-disciplinary junction of branches of science. Scientific
cognition is characterized by two levels — empirical and theoretical. Characteristic
feature of empirical knowledge is the fact fixing activity.  Theoretical cognition
is substantial cognition /knowledge per se/ which occurs at the level of high
order abstraction. There two ways to attempt to solve a problem:  search for
the necessary information or investigate it independently by means of
observation, experiments and theoretical thinking. Observation and experiment
are the most important methods of research
in the process of scientific cognition. It is often said that theory
is generalization of practice, experience or observations. Scientific generalizations
often imply the use of a number of special logical methods: 1) Universalization
/globbing/ method which consists in that general points/aspects/ and properties
observed in the limited set of experiments hold true for all possible cases; 2) Idealization method
consisting in that conditions are specified at which processes described in laws
occur in their pure form, i.e. the way they cannot occur in reality; 3) Conceptualization
method consisting in that concepts borrowed from other theories are entered into the
formulation of laws, these concepts acquiring acceptably /accurate/ exact meaning
and significance. Major methods of scientific cognition are: 1) Method of ascending
from abstract to concrete. The process of scientific cognition is always
connected with transition from extremely simple concepts to more difficult concrete
ones. 2) Method of modeling and principle of system. It consists in that the
object inaccessible to direct research is replaced with its model. A model possesses similarity with the object
in terms of its properties that are of interest for the researcher. 3) Experiment
and observation. In the course of experiment the observer would isolate
artificially a number of characteristics of the investigated system and examine
their dependence on other parameters. It is necessary to take into account that
about 10 — 25 % of scientific information is proven outdated annually and in
the near future this figure can reach 70%; according to other sources, the
volume of information doubles every 5 years. It means that the system of education/teaching
and “non-stop” retraining applied in some cases will become a universal and mandatory
phenomenon, whereas the boundary between necessary and desirable knowledge will
become more vague and conventional. In modern conditions active and purposeful
studying of someone’s future sphere (spheres) of activity should start 4-5
years prior to entering the university. Considerable development will be seen
in “preventive” (pre-emptive, anticipatory) education taking into account
prospects of development of science for 3-5-10 years from no on. Masterful
knowledge of methods of scientific-analytical and creative thinking is becoming
the same social standard and a sign of affiliation to elite social groups as,
for example, the presence of higher education diploma. The law of inverse
proportionality of controllability and the ability to development says the
more the system is controllable, the less it is capable of development. Controllable
development may only be overtaking/catching up/. Now, a few thoughts about
errors in the course of training.  Traditional approach tends to
consider an error as the lack of learning, assiduity, attention, diligence,
etc. As a result the one to blame is a trainee. Error should be
perceived as a constructive element in the system of heuristic training. An educational
institution is just the institute where the person should make mistakes under
the guidance of a teacher. An important element of cognitive system is
professional terminology. The lack of knowledge of terms would not release anyone
from the need to understand … Each term contains the concentrated mass of nuances and details distinguishing
the scientific vision of the matter in question from the ordinary, unscientific
understanding… It should be mentioned that the process of teaching/educating/ is
a stress which has pluses and minuses, whereas the process of studying is a much
smaller stress. One of the main tasks in terms of (self-) education may be the
formation of active desire (internal requirement) to study and be engaged in (self-)
education with independent search of appropriate means and possibilities. Special
consideration should be given to teaching/training means and methods, i.e. what
is comprehensible to one group of trainees may be useless for others. Major differentiation
would be seen in age categories plus individual features. Training games are
quite a universal tool used for a wide range of subjects and development of
practical skills, since the game reflects the trainee’s behavior in reality. It
is a system that provides an immediate feedback. Instead of listening to a
lecture the trainee is given the individual lesson adapted for his/her needs.
Game is modeling of reality and method of influencing it by the trainee. Some minuses
of game include conventionality and schematic nature of what is going on and the
development of the trainee’s behavioral and cogitative stereotypes. Major
strategic consequences of wide spread of scientific thinking skills may include
systemic (including quantitative — qualitative) changes in the system of science,
education and industry, sharp increase of labor force mobility (both “white”
and “blue collar”) and possible global social-economic and social-political
changes.


Part 1. Meta-skills:

 Pass preliminary test by
means of Kettel’s 16-factor questionnaire (form C), test your IQ (Intelligence Quotient) using
Aizenc’s test. Undergo testing for operative and long-term memory,
attention distribution, noise immunity and will. Plan the development of these
qualities in your character.

Methods of work
with the text

(W. Tuckman “Educational
Psychology. From Theory to Application”. Florida. State University. 1992):

1. Look through the
text before reading it in detail to determine what it is about.

2. Focus your
attention on the most significant places (semantic nodes) in the text.

3. Keep short
record (summary/synopsis) of the most significant facts.

4. Keep close watch
of understanding of what you read. If something appears not quite understood, re-read the
paragraph once again.

5. Check up and
generalize (analyze) what you have read in respect to the purpose of your
reading.

6. Check up the correctness
of understanding of separate words and thoughts in reference literature.

7. Quickly resume
the work (reading) if you have been interrupted.

Training of fast
reading – “Fast Reader 32” Program. Download the program: http://www.likasoft.com — highly effective searcher in database on the basis of keywords.

Now, be prepared, it is going
to be a little bit difficult.


Part 2. Basics of general
theory of systems (GTS) and systemic analysis

The world as a
whole is a system which, in turn, consists of multitude of large and small systems.
In the classical theory of systems one can single out three various classes of
objects: the primitive systems, which structure is invariable (for example, the mathematical
pendulum); analytical systems, which almost always have fixed structure, but
sometimes undergo bifurcations – spasmodic changes of structure (simple ecosystem); chaotic
systems continually changing their structure (for example, atmosphere of the
Earth). Chaos is essentially an unstable structural system. In this
sense chaos is a synonym of changeable, internally inconsistent, unstable
developing system which cannot be referred to analytical structures. Having
established the general principles of management in any systems, one can try to
determine how the system should be organized to work most effectively. This
approach to research of problems of management from general to particular, from
abstract to concrete is named organizational or systemic. Such approach
provides the possibility of studying of a considerable quantity of alternative
variants, the analysis of limitations and consequences of decisions made. “The system is a
set of interacting elements”, said Berthalanfie, one of the founders of
the modern General Theory of Systems (GTS) emphasizing that the system is
a structure in which elements somehow or other affect each other (interact). Is such
definition sufficient to distinguish a system from non-system? Obviously, it is
not, because in any structure its elements passively or actively somehow interact
with each other (press, push, attract/draw, induce, heat up, get on someone
nerves, feel nervous, deceive, absorb, etc.). Any set of elements always
operates somehow or other and it is impossible to find an object which would
not make any actions. However, these actions can be accidental, purposeless, although
accidentally and unpredictably, they can be conducive to the achievement of some
goal. Though a sign of action is the core, it determines not the concept of the
system, but one of the essential conditions of this concept. “The
system is an isolated part, a fragment of the world, the Universe, possessing a
special property emergence/emergent factor, relative
self-sufficiency (thermodynamic isolation)”, said P. Etkins. But any object is a part or a Universe fragment, and each
object differs from the others in some special property (emergence/emergent factor – a property which is not characteristic
of simple sum of all parts of the given system), including a place of its location,
period of existence, etc.
And at that, each object is to a certain degree thermodynamically independent,
although is dependent on its environment. Hence, this definition also defines not only a system
itself, but some consequences of systemic nature as well. Adequate/comprehensive/
definition of the concept “system” is possibly, non-existent, because the
concept “goal/purpose” has been underestimated. Any properties of systems are ultimately
connected with the concept of goal/purpose because any system differs from
other systems in the constancy of its actions, and the aspiration to keep this
constancy is a distinctive feature of any system. Nowadays the goal/purpose is treated as one
of the elements of behavior and conscious activity of an individual which
characterizes anticipation/vision of comprehension of the result of activity
and the way of its realization by means of certain ways and methods. The
purpose/goal acts as the way of integration of various actions of an individual
in some kind of sequence or system. So, the purpose is interpreted as purely
human factor inherent only in human being. There’s nothing for it but to apply
the concept of “purpose/goal” not only to psychological activity of an
individual, but to the concept of “system”, because the basic distinctive feature
of any system is it designation for some purpose/goal. Any system is always
intended for something, is purposeful and serves some definite purpose/goal,
and the goal is set not only before the individual, but before each system as
well, regardless of its complexity. Nevertheless, none of definitions of
a system does practically contain the concept of purpose/goal, although it is
the aim, but not the signs of action, emergence factor or something else, which
is a system forming factor. There are no systems without goal/purpose, and to
achieve this purpose the group of elements consolidates in a system and
operates. Purposefulness is defined by a question “What can this object do?” “The
system is a complex of discretionary involved elements jointly contributing to
the achievement of the predetermined benefit, which is assumed to be the core
system forming factor”. One can only facilitate the achievement of specific
goal, while the predetermined benefits can only be the goal. The only thing to
be clarified now is who or what determines the usefulness of the result. In
other words, who or what
sets the goal before the system? The entire theory of systems is
built on the basis of four axioms and four laws which are deduced from the
axioms: axiom #1: a system always has one consistent/invariable general goal/purpose
(the principle of system purposefulness, predestination); axiom #2: the goal
for the systems is set from the outside (the principle of goal setting for the
systems); axiom #3: to achieve the goal the system should operate in a certain
mode (the principle of  systems’ performance) – law #1: the law of conservation
(the principle of consistency of systems’ performance for the conservation of the
consistency of goal/ purpose), law #2: the law of cause-and-effect limitations
(the principle of determinism of systems’ performance), law #3: the law of
hierarchies of goals/purposes (the principle of breakdown of goal/purpose into sub-goals/sub-purposes),
law #4: the law of hierarchies of systems (the principle of distribution of sub-goals/sub-purposes
between subsystems and the principle of subordination of subsystems);  axiom №4:
the result of systems’ performance exists independently from the systems themselves
(the principle of independence of the performance result). Axiom #1: the
principle of purposefulness. At first it is necessary to determine what meaning
we attach to the concept “system”, as far as at first sight there are at least
two groups of objects”: “systems” and “non-systems”. In which case the object presents
a system? It is not likely that any object can be a system, although both
systems and non-systems consist of a set of parts (components, elements, etc.).
In some cases a heap of sand is a structure, but not a system, although it consists
of a set of elements representing heterogeneity of density in space (grains of
sand in conjunction with hollows). However, in other cases the same heap of
sand can be a system. So, what is the difference then between the structure-system
and the structure-non-system, since after all both do consist of elements? All
objects can be divided into two big groups, if certain equal external influence
is exerted upon them: those with consistent retaliatory actions and those with
variable and unpredictable response action. Thus, if we change external
influence we then again will get the same two groups, but their structure will
change: other objects will now be characterized by the consistency of response actions
under the influence of new factors, while those previously characterized by
such constancy under the former influencing factors will have no such
characteristics under the influence of new factors any more. Let us call the
systems those objects consisting of a set of elements and characterized by the
constancy/consistency of actions in response to certain external influences. Those
not characterized by the constancy of response actions under the same
influences may be called casual sets of elements with respect to these influences. Hence,
the concept of “system” is relative depending on how the given group of
elements reacts to the given certain external influence. The constancy and similarity of reaction of the interacting
group of elements in respect of certain external influence is the criterion of
system. The constancy of actions in response to certain external influence is
the goal/purpose of the given system. Hence, the goal/purpose stipulates
direction of the system’s performance. Any systems differ in constancy of performance/actions
and differ from each other in purposefulness (predestination for something
concrete). There is no system “in general”, but there are always concrete
systems intended for some specific goals/purposes. Any object of our World
differs from another only in purpose, predetermination for something. Different
systems have different goals/purposes and they determine distinction between
the systems. Hence, the opposite conclusion may be drawn: if there any system
exists, it means it has a goal/purpose. We do not always understand the goals/purposes
of either systems, but they (goals/purposes) are always present in any systems.
We cannot tell, for example, what for is the atom of hydrogen needed, but we
can not deny that it is necessary for the creation of polymeric organic chains
or, for example, for the formation of a molecule of water. Anyway, if we need
to construct a water molecule, we need to take, besides the atom of oxygen, two
atoms of hydrogen instead of carbon or any other element. The system may be such
group of elements only in which the result of their general interaction differs
from the results of separate actions of each of these elements. The result may
differ both qualitatively and quantitatively. The mass of the heap of sand is
more than the mass of a separate grain of sand (quantitative difference). The
room which walls are built of bricks has a property to limit space volume which
is not the case with separate bricks (qualitative difference). Any system
is always predetermined for some purpose, but it always has one and the same
purpose. Haemoglobin as a system is always intended for the transfer of oxygen only,
a car is intended for transportation and the juice extractor for squeezing of
juice from fruit. One can use the juice extractor made of iron to hammer in a
nail, but it is not the juice extractor system’s purpose. This constancy of
purpose obliges any systems to always operate to achieve one and the same goal predetermined
for them.

Principle of
performance of action. Any system is intended for any well defined and concrete
goal specific for it, and for this purpose it performs only specific (target-oriented)
actions. Hence, the goal of a system is the aspiration to perform certain
purposeful actions for the achievement of target-oriented (appropriate) result
of action. The plane is designed for air transportation, but cannot float; for
this purpose there is an amphibian aircraft. The result of aircraft performance
is moving by air. This result of action is expectable and predictable. The
constancy and predictability of functional performance is a distinctive feature
of any systems – living, natural, social, financial, technical, etc.
Consequently, in order to achieve the goal any object of our World should function, make
any purposeful actions, operations (in this case the purposeful, deliberate
inaction is in some sense an action, too). Action is manifestation of some
energy, activity, as well as force itself, the functioning of something;
condition, process arising in response to some influence, stimulant/irritant,
impression (for example, reaction in psychology, chemical reactions, nuclear
reactions). The object’s action is followed by the result of action (not always
expected, but always logical and conditioned). The purpose of any system is the
aspiration to yield appropriate (targeted) result of action. At that, the given
object is the donor of the result of action. The result of action of donor
system can be directed towards any other system which in this case will be the
recipient (target) for the result of action. In this case the result of action
of the donor system becomes the external influence for the recipient system.
Interaction between the systems is carried out only through the results of
action. In that way the chain of actions is built as follows: … →
(external influence) → result of action (external influence) →…
The system produces single result of action for single external influence. No
object operates in itself. It cannot decide on its own “Here now I will start
to operate” because it has no freedom of will and it cannot set the goal before
itself and produce the result of action on its own. It can only react (act) in response
to certain external influence. Any actions of any objects are always their
reaction to something. Any influence causes response/reaction. Lack of
influence causes no reaction. Reaction can sometimes be delayed, therefore it may
seem causeless. But if one digs and delves, it is always possible to find the cause,
i.e. external influence. Cognition of the world only falls to our lot through the
reactions of its elements. Reaction (from Latin “re” – return and “actio”
— action) is an action, condition, process arising in response to some
influence, irritant/stimulant, impression (for example, reaction in psychology,
chemical reactions, nuclear reactions). Consequently, the system’s action in response
to the external influence is the reaction of the system. When the system has
worked (responded) and the required result of action has been received, it
means that it has already achieved (“quenched”) the goal and after that it has
no any more goal to aspire to. Reaction is always secondary and occurs only and
only following the external influence exerted upon the element. Reaction can
sometimes occur after a long time following the external influence if, for
example, the given element has been specially “programmed” for the delay. But
it will surely occur, provided that the force of the external influence exceeds
the threshold of the element’s sensitivity to the external influence and that
the element is capable to respond to the given influence in general. If the element is able
of reacting to pressure above 1 atmosphere it will necessarily react if the pressure
is in excess of 1 atmosphere. If the pressure is less than 1 atmosphere it will
not react to the lower pressure. If it is influenced by temperature, humidity
or electric induction, it will also not react, howsoever we try to “persuade” it,
as it is only capable to react to pressure higher than 1 atmosphere. In no
pressure case (no pressure above 1 atmosphere), it will never react. Since
the result of the system’s performance appears only following some external
influence, it is always secondary, because the external influence is primary.
External influence is the cause and the result of action is a consequence
(function). It is obvious that donor systems can produce one or several results
of action, while the recipient systems may only react to one or several external
influences. But donor elements can interact with the recipient systems only in
case of qualitatively homogeneous actions. If the recipient systems can react
only to pressure, then the systems able of interacting with them may be those
which result of action is pressure, but not temperature, electric current or
something else. Interaction between donor systems and recipient systems is only
possible in case of qualitative uniformity (homoreactivity, the principle of homogeneous
interactivity). We can listen to the performance of the musician on a stage
first of all because we have ears. The earthworm is not able to understand our
delight from the performance of the musician at least for the reason that it has
no ears, it cannot perceive a sound and it has no idea about a sound even if
(hypothetically) it could have an intelligence equal to ours. The result of
action of the recipient element can be both homogeneous (homoreactive) and non-homogeneous,
unequal in terms of quality of action (heteroreactive) of external influence in
respect of it. For example, the element reacts to pressure, and its result of
action can be either pressure or temperature, or frequency, or a stream/flow of
something, or the number of inhabitants of the forest (apartment, city, country)
etc. Hence, the reaction of an element to the external influence can be both homoreactive
and heteroreactive. In the first case the elements are the action transmitters,
in the second case they are converters of quality of action. If the result of the
system’s actions completely corresponds to the implementation of goal, it
speaks of the sufficiency of this system (the given group of interacting elements)
for the given purpose. If not, the given group of elements mismatches the given
goal/purpose and/or is insufficient, or is not the proper system for the achievement
of a degree of quality and quantity of the preset goal. Therefore, any existing
object can be characterized by answering the basic question: “What can the
given object do?” This question characterizes the concept of the “result of
action of an object” which in turn consists of two subquestions: What action
can be done by given object? (the quality of result of action); How much of such
action can be done by the given object? (the quantity of result of action).
These two subquestions characterize the aspiration of a system to implement the
goal. And the goal-setting may be characterized by answering another question:
“What should the given object do?” which also consists of two subquestions:
what action should the given object do? (the quality of the result of action);
how much of such action should the given object do? (the quantity of the result
of action). These last two subquestions are the ones that determine the goal as a task
(the order/command, the instruction) for the given object or group of objects,
and the system is being sought or built to achieve this goal. The closer the correspondence
between what should and what can be done by the given object, the closer the
given object is to the ideal system. The real result of action of the system
should correspond to preset (expected) result. This correspondence is the basic
characteristic of any system. Wide variety of systems may be built of a very
limited number of elements. All the diverse material physical universe is built
of various combinations of protons, electrons and neutrons and these
combinations are the systems with specific goals/purposes. We do not know the taste
of protons, neutrons and electrons, but we do know the taste of sugar which
molecular atoms are composed of these elements. Same elements are the constructional
material of both the human being and a stone. The result of the action of pendulum
would be just swaying, but not secretion of hormones, transmission of impulse,
etc. Hence, its goal/purpose and result of action is nothing more but only swaying
at constant frequency. The symphonic orchestra can only play pieces of music,
but not build, fight or merchandize, etc. Generator of random numbers should
generate only random numbers. If all of a sudden it starts generate series of
interdependent numbers, it will cease to be the generator of random numbers.
Real and ideal systems differ from each other in that the former always have
additional properties determined by the imperfection of real systems. Massive
golden royal seal, for example, may be used to crack nuts just as well as by
means of a hammer or a plain stone, but it is intended for other purpose.
Therefore, as it has already been noted above, the concept of “system” is
relative, but not absolute, depending on correspondence between what should and
what can be done by the given object. If the object can implement the goal set
before it, it is the system intended for the achievement of this goal. If it cannot
do so, it is not the system for the given goal, but can be a system intended
for other goals. It does not mater for the achievement of the goal what the
system consists of, but what is important is what it can do. In any case the possibility
to implement the goal determines the system. Therefore, the system is determined
not by the structure of its elements, but by the extent of precision/accuracy
of implementation of the expected result. What is important is the result of
action, rather than the way it was achieved. Absolutely different elements may
be used to build the systems for the solution of identical problems (goals).
The sum of US$200 in the form of US$1 value coins each and the check for the same amount
can perform the same action (may be used to make the same purchase), although they
consist of different elements. In one case it is metal disks with the engraved
signs, while in other case it is a piece of a paper with the text drawn on it.
Hence, they are systems named “money” with identical purposes, provided that
they may be used for purchase and sale without taking into account, for
example, conveniences of carrying them over or a guarantee against theft. But
the more conditions are stipulated, the less number of elements are suitable
for the achievement of the goal. If we, for example, need large amount of money,
say, US$1.000.000 in cash,
and want it not to be bulky and the guarantee that it is not
counterfeit we will only accept US$100 bank notes received only from bank. The
more the goal is specified, the less is the choice of elements suitable for it.
Thus, the system is determined by the correspondence of the goal set to the
result of its action. The goal is both the task for an object (what it should
make) and its aspiration or desire (what it aspires to). If the given group of
elements can realize this goal, it is a system for the achievement of the goal
set. If it cannot realize this goal, it is not the system intended for the achievement
of the given goal, although it can be the system for the achievement of other goals.
The system operates for the achievement of the goal. Actually, the system transforms
through its actions the goal into the result of action, thus spending its energy.
Look around and everything you’ll see are someone’s materialized goals and
realized desires. On a large scale everything that populates our World is
systems and just systems, and all of them are intended for a wide range of
various purposes. But we do not always know the purposes of many of these
systems and therefore not all objects are perceived by us as systems.
Reactions of systems to similar external influences are always constant,
because the goal is always determined and constant. Therefore, the result of
action should always be determined, i.e. identical and constant (a principle of
consistency of correspondence of the system’s action result to the appropriate
result), and for this purpose the system’s actions should be the same (the
principle of a constancy of correspondence of actual actions of the system to
the due ones). If the result fails to be constant it cannot be appropriate and
equal to the preset result (the principle of consistency/permanency of the result
of action). The conservation law proceeds/results/ from the principle
of consistency/permanency of action. Let us call the permanency of reaction “purposefulness”,
as maintaining the similarity (permanency/consistency) of reaction is the goal
of a system. Hence, the law of conservation is determined by the goal/purpose. The
things conserved would be those only, which correspond to the achievement of
the system’s goal. This includes both actions per se and the sequence of actions
and elements needed to perform these actions, and the energy spent for the performance
of these actions, because the system would seek to maintain its movement towards
the goal and this movement will be purposeful. Therefore, the purpose determines
the conservation law and the law of cause-and-effect limitations (see below), rather
than other way round. The conservation law is one of the organic, if not the
most fundamental, laws of our universe. One of particular consequences of the conservation
law is that the substance never emerges from nothing and does not transform
into nothing (the law of conservation of matter). It always exists. It might
have been non-existent before origination of the World, if there was origination
of the World per se, and it might not be existent after its end, if it is to
end, but in our World it
does neither emerge, nor disappear. A matter is substance and
energy. The substance (deriving from the /Rus/ word “thing”,
“object” ) may exist in various combinations of its forms (liquid, solid,
gaseous and other, as well as various bodies), including the living forms. But
matter is always some kind of objects, from elementary particles to galaxies, including living
objects.Substance consists of elements. Some forms of substances may turn into
others (chemical, nuclear and other structural transformations) at the expense
of regrouping of elements by change of ties between them. Physical form of the conservation law
is represented by Einstein’s formula. A substance may turn into energy and other
way round. Energy (from Greek “energeia” — action, activity) is the general
quantitative measure of movement and interaction of all kinds of matter. Energy
in nature does not arise from anything and does not disappear; it only can change
its one form into another. The concept of energy brings all natural phenomena
together. Interaction between the systems or between the elements of systems is
in effect the link between them. From the standpoint of system, energy is the
measure (quantity) of interaction between the elements of the system or between
the systems which needs to be accomplished for the establishment of link
between them. For example, one watt may be material measure of energy. Measures
of energy in other systems, such as social, biological, mental and other, are not yet
developed. Any objects represent the systems, therefore interactions between
them are interactions between the systems. But systems are formed at the
expense of interaction between their elements and formations of inter-element relations
between them. In the process of interaction between the systems intersystem relations
are established. Any action, including interaction, needs energy. Therefore, when
establishing relations/links/ the energy is being “input”. Consequently, as
interaction between the elements of the system or different systems is the
relation/link between them, the latter is the energy-related concept. In other
words, when creating a system from elements and its restructuring from simple
into complex, the energy is spent for the establishment of new relations /links
/connections between the elements. When the system is destructed the links
between the elements collapse and energy is released. Systems are conserved at
the expense of energy of relations/links between its elements. It is the internal
energy of a system. When these relations/links are destructed the energy is released,
but the system itself as an object disappears. Consequently, the internal
energy of a system is the energy of relations/link between the elements of the
system. In endothermic reactions the energy used for the establishment of
connections/links/relations comes to the system from the outside. In exothermic
reactions internal energy of the system is released at the expense of  rupture
of these connections between its internal own elements which already existed prior
to the moment when reaction occurred. But when the connection is already
formed, by virtue of conservation law its energy is not changed any more, if no
influence is exerted upon the system. For example, in establishing of
connections/links between the two nuclei of deuterium (2D2) the nucleus 1Не4 is
formed and the energy is released (for the purpose of simplicity details are omitted,
for example, reaction proton-proton). And the 1Не4 nucleus mass becomes slightly
less than the sum of masses of two deuterium nuclei by the value multiple of the
energy released, in accordance with the physical expression of the conservation
law. Thus, in process of merge of deuterium nuclei part of their intra-nuclear bonds
collapses and it is for this reason that the merge of these nuclei becomes
possible. The energy of connection between the elements of deuterium nuclei is much
stronger than that of the bond between the two deuterium nuclei. Therefore, when
part of connections between elements of deuterium nuclei is destructed the
energy is released, part of it being used for thermonuclear synthesis, i.e. the
establishment of connection/bond between the two deuterium nuclei (extra-nuclear
connection/bond in respect to deuterium nuclei), while other part is released
outside helium nucleus. But our World is tamped not only with matter. Other
objects, including social, spiritual, cultural, biological, medical and others,
are real as well. Their reality is manifested in that they can actively
influence both each other and other kinds of matter (through the performance of
other systems and human beings). And they also exist and perform not
chaotically, but are subjected to specific, though strict laws of existence. The
law of conservation applies to them as well, because they possess their own
kinds of “energy” and they did not come into being in a day, but may only turn
one into another. Any system can be described in terms of qualitative and
quantitative characteristics. Unlike material objects, the behavior of other objects
can be described nowadays only qualitatively, as they for the present the have
no their own “thermodynamics”, for example, “psychodynamics”. We do not know,
for example, what quantity of “Watt” of spiritual energy needs to be applied to
solve difficult psychological problem, but we know that spiritual energy is
needed for such a solution. Nevertheless, these objects are the full-value systems
as well, and they are structured based on the same principles as other material
systems. As systems are the groups of elements, and changes of forms of
substances represent the change of connections/bonds between the elements of substance,
then changes of forms of substances represent the changes of forms of systems.
Hence, the form is determined by the specificity of connections/bonds/ties
between the elements of systems. “Nothing in this world lasts for ever”, the
world is continually changing, whereby one kind of forms of matter turn into
other, but it is only forms that vary, while matter is indestructible and
always conserved. At the same time, alteration of forms is also subjected to
the law of conservation and it is this law that determines the way in which one
kind of forms should replace other forms of matter. Forms only alter on account
of change of connections/ties between the elements of systems. As far as each
connection between the system elements has energetic equivalent, any system
contains internal energy which is the sum of energies of connections/bonds
between all elements. The “form: (Latin, philos.) is a totality of relations determining
the object. The form is contraposed to matter, the content of an object. According
to Aristotle, the form is the actuating force that forms the objects and exists
beyond the latter. According to Kant, form is everything brought in by the
subject of cognition to the content of the cognizable matter — space, time and substance
of the form of cognitive ability; all categories of thinking: quantity,
quality, relation, substance, place, time, etc., are forms, the product of
ability of abstraction, formation of general concepts of our intellect.
However, these are not quite correct definitions. The form cannot be contraposed
to matter because it is inseparably linked with the latter, it is the form of matter
itself. The form cannot be a force either, although it probably pertains to
energy because it is determined by energy-bearing connections within the system.
According to Kant, form is a purely subjective concept, as it only correlates
with intellectual systems and their cognitive abilities. Why, do not the forms
exist without knowing them? Any system has one or other shape/look of form. And
the system’s form is determined by type and nature of connections/relations/bonds
between the system elements. Therefore, the form is a kind of connections
between the system elements. Since the systems may interact, new connections/bonds
between them are thus established and new forms of systems emerge. In other
words, in process of interaction between the systems new systems emerge as new
forms. The energy is always expended in the course of interaction between the systems.
Logic form of the conservation law is the law of cause-and-effect limitations because
it is corresponded by a logical connective “if….., then….” Possible choice of
external influences (causes) to which the system should react is limited by the
first part of this connective “if…”, whereas the actions of systems
(consequences) are limited by the second part “then…”. It is for this reason
that the law is called the law of cause-and-effect limitations. This law reads
“Any consequence has its cause /every why has a
wherefore/”. Nothing appears without the reason/cause and nothing disappears
for no special reason/cause. There are no consequences without the reason/cause,
there is no reaction without the influence. It is unambiguousness and certainty
of reaction of systems to the external influence that lays the cornerstone of determinism
in nature. Every specific cause is followed by specific consequence. The system
should always react only to certain external influences and always react only in
a certain way. Chemoreceptor intended for О2 would always react only to О2, but not to Na +, Ca ++ or glucose. At that, it will give out certain potential of
action, rather than a portion of hormone, mechanical contraction or something else.
Any system differs in specificity of the external influence and specificity of
the reaction. The certainty of external influences and the reactions to them
imposes limitations on the types of the latter. Therefore, the need in the
following arises from the law of cause-and-effect limitations: execution of any specific
(certain) action to achieve specific (certain) purpose; existence of any
specific (certain) system (subsystem) for the implementation of such action, as
no action occurs by itself; sequences of actions: the system would always start to perform
and produce the result of action only after external influence is exerted on it
because it does not have free will for making decision on the implementation of
the action. Hence, the result of the system performance can always appear only
after certain actions are done by the system. These actions can only be done
following the external influence. External influence is primary and the result
of action is secondary. Of all possible actions those will be implemented only which
are caused by external influence and limited (stipulated) by the possibilities
of the responding system. If, following the former external influence, the goal
is already achieved and there is no new external influence after delivery of the
result of action, the system should be in a state of absolute rest and not
operate, because it is only the goal that makes the system operate, and this goal
is already achieved. No purpose — no actions. If new external influence arises
a new goal appears as well, and then the system will start again to operate and new result of
action will be produced.

Major characteristics
of systems. To carry out purposeful actions the system should have appropriate
elements. It is a consequence of the laws of conservation and cause-and-effect limitations
since nothing occurs by itself. Therefore, any systems are multi-component
objects and their structure is not casual. The structure of systems in many
respects determines their possibilities to perform certain actions. For
example, the system made of bricks can be a house, but cannot be a computer.
But it is not the structure only that determines the possibilities of systems. Strictly
determined specific interaction between them determined by their mutual
relation is required. Two hands can make what is impossible to make by one hand
or “solitary” hands, if one can put it in that way. The hand of a monkey has
same five fingers as a hand of a human being does. But the hand of a human
being coupled with its intellect has transformed the world on the
Earth. Two essential signs thereby determine the quality and quantity of
results of action of any systems – the structure of elements and their relations.
Any object has only two basic characteristics: what and how much work/many
things/ it can do. New quality can only be present in the group of elements
interacting in a specific defined mode/manner. “Defined” means target-oriented.
“Interacting in a defined mode/manner” means having definite goal, being constructed
and operating in a definite mode/manner for the achievement of the given goal. Defined
mode/manner cannot be found/inherent in separate given elements and randomly interacting
elements. As a result of certain interaction of elements part of their
properties would be neutralized and other part used for the achievement of the
goal. Transformation of one set of forms of a matter into others occurs for the
account of neutralization of some properties of these forms of a matter. And
neutralization occurs for the account of change of some connections/bonds
between the elements of an object, as these connections/bonds determine the form
of an object. For this reason we say “would be neutralized” rather than “destroyed”,
because nothing in this world does disappear and appear (the conservation law).
The whole world consists of protons, neutrons and electrons, but we see various
objects which differ in color, consistence, taste, form, molecular and atomic composition,
etc. It means that in the course of specific interaction of protons, neutrons
and electrons certain inter-elementary connections are established. At that, some
of their properties would be neutralized, while others conserved or even amplified
in such a manner that the whole of diversity of our world stems from it. The goal
of any system is the fulfillment of the preset (defined) condition, achievement
of the preset result of action (goal/objective). If the preset result of action
came out incidentally, then the next moment it might not be achieved and the designated/preset
result would disappear. But if for some reason there is a need in the result of
action being always exactly identical to this one and not to any other (goal-setting),
it is necessary that the group of interacting elements retain this new result
of action. To this end the given group of elements should continually seek to retain
the designated/preset condition (implementation of goal/objective).

Simple systemic
functional unit (SFU). The system may consist of any quantity of functional
elements/executive component, provided that each of the latter can participate
(contribute to) the achievement of the goal/objective and the quantity of such
components is sufficient enough for realization of this goal. The minimal system
is such group of “k” elements which, in case of removal of at least one of the
elements from its structure, loses the quality inherent in this group of
elements, but not present in any of the given “k” elements. Such group of
elements is a simple systemic functional unit (simple, not composite SFU), the
minimal elementary system having some property (ability to make action) which
is not present in any of
its separate elements. Any SFU reacts to external influence under
the “all-or-none” law. This law is resulting from the definition of simple SFU
(removal of any of its elements would terminate its function as a system) and discrecity
of its structure. Any of its elements may either be or not be a part of simple SFU.
And since simple SFU by definition consists of finite and minimal set of function
elements and all of them should be within the SFU structure and be functional
(operational), termination of functioning of any of these elements would terminate
the function of the entire SFU as a system. Regardless of the force of external
influence, but given the condition of its being in excess of a certain
threshold, the result of its performance will be maximal, ( “all”). If there is
no external influence, the SFU would nowise prove out (would not react, “none”).
Simple SFU, despite its name, may be arbitrary complex – from elementary minimal
SFU to maximal complex ones. The molecule of any substance consists of several
atoms. Removal of any atom transforms this molecule from one substance into
another. And even each atom represents a very complex constitution. Removal of any
of its elements transforms it into an ion, other atom or other isotope. A soldier
is a simple SFU of the system called “the army”. A soldier is a human being’s
body plus full soldier’s outfit. The body of a human being is an extremely complex
object, but removal of any of its parts would render the soldier invalid. At
that, the soldier’s outfit/equipment is multi-component as well. But the equipment
cannot shoot without man and the man cannot shoot without the equipment. They
can only carry out together the functions inherent in SFU named “soldier”.
Despite the internal complexity which may be however big, simple SFU is a
separate element which looks as a whole unit with certain single property
(quality) to fulfill one certain action elementary in relation to the entire
system, i.e. to grasp a ball, molecule, push a portion of blood, produce
force/load of 0.03 grams, provide living conditions for the animal (for
example, one specific unit of forest area) or to an individual (apartment), fire
a shot, etc. Any SFU, once it is divided into parts, ceases to be an SFU for
the designated goal. It is due to interaction of the parts only that the group
of elements can show its worth as SFU. When something breaks a good owner would
always think at first where in his household the fragments may be applied and
only thereafter he would throw them out, because one broken thing (one SFU) can
be transformed into another, more simple one (another SFU). Haemoglobin is an element of blood
circulation system and serves for capturing and subsequent return of oxygen.
Hence, haemoglobin molecules are the SFU of erythrocytes.  Ligands of
haemoglobin molecules are the SFU of haemoglobin, as each of them can serve a
trap for oxygen molecules. However, further division of ligand brings to a stop
the function of retention of oxygen molecules, etc. The SFU analogues in an
inorganic nature/abiocoen are, for example, all material particles possessing
ability to lose their properties when dividing – elementary particles (?), atoms,
molecules, etc. Viruses may probably be the systemic functional units of heredity
(FUH). Thus, it is likely that at first polymeric molecules of DNA type came
into being in the claypan strata or even in the interplanetary dust or on
comets, based on a type of auto-catalytic Butler’s reaction, i.e. synthesis of
various sugars including ribose from formaldehyde in the presence of Ca and Mg ions,
ribose being a basis for the creation of RNA and DNA, and thereafter cellular
structures emerged. These examples of various concrete SFU show that SFU is not
something indivisible, since each of them is multicomponent and therefore can
be divided into parts. Only intra-atomic elementary particles may pretend to be
true SFU that are the basis of the whole of matter of our entire world as it is
still impossible to split them into parts. It is for this reason that they are called
elementary. It may well be that they are of a very complex structure, too, but formed
not from the elements of physical nature, but of some different matter, and are
the result of action of performance of systems of non-physical nature, or
rather not of the forms of the World of ours. It is indicative of the existence
of binate virtual particles, for example, positron and electron, emerging ostensibly
from emptiness, vacuum and disappearing thereto after all. We cannot cut paper
with scissors made of the same paper material. It’s unlikely that we can “cut”
elementary particles with the “scissors” made of the same matter either.

Elementary block of
management (direct positive connection/bond, DPC). In order for any SFU to be
able to perform it should contain certain elements for implementation of its
actions according to the laws of conservation and cause-and-effect limitations.
To implement target-oriented actions the system should contain performance
/“executive”/ elements and in order to render the executive element’s
interaction target-oriented, the system should contain the elements (block) of
management/control. Executive elements (effectors) carry out certain (target-oriented)
action of a system to ensure the achievement of the preset result of action. The
result of action would not come out by itself. In order to achieve it
performance of certain objects is required. On the example of plain with a
feeler /trial balloon/ such elements are plains themselves. But it (the executive
element) exists on itself and produces its own results of action in response to
certain influences external with respect to it. It will react if something influences
upon it and will not react in the absence of any influence. Interaction with
its other elements would pertain to it so far as the results of action of other
elements are the external influence in respect of it per se and may invoke its
reaction in response to these influences. This reaction will already be shown
in the form of its own result of action which would also be the external
influence in respect to other elements of the system, and no more than that.  Not
a single action of any element of the system can be the result of action of the
system itself by definition. It does not matter for any separate executive
element whether or not the preset condition (the goal of the system) was fulfilled
haphazardly, whether or not the given group of elements produced a
qualitatively new preset result of action or something prevented it from
happening. It in no way affects the way the executive elements “feel”, i.e. their
own functions, and none of their inherent property would force them to “watch”
the fulfillment of the general goal of the system. They are simply “not able” of
doing so. The elements of management (the control block) are needed for the
achievement of the particular preset result, rather than of any other result of
action. Since the goal is the reaction in response to specific external
influence, at first there is a need to “feel” it, to segregate it from the
multitude of other nonspecific external influences, “make decision” on any
specific actions and begin to perform. If, for example, the SFU reacts to
pressure it should be able to “feel” just pressure (reception), rather than
temperature or something else. For this purpose it should have a special “organ”
(receptor) which is able of doing so. In order to react only to specific
external influence which may pertain to the fulfillment of the goal, the SFU
should not only have reception, but also single it out from all other external
influences affecting it (selection). For this purpose it should have a special organ
(selector or analyzer) which is able to segregate the right signal from a
multitude of others. Thereafter, having “felt” and segregated the external
influence, it should “make decision” that there is a need to act
(decision-making). For this purpose it should have a special or decision-making
organ able of making decisions. Then it should realize this decision, i.e. force
the executive elements to act (implementation of decision). For this purpose it
should have elements (stimulators) with the help of which it would be possible
to communicate decision to the executive elements. Therefore, in order to react
to certain external influence and to achieve the required result of action it is necessary to accomplish
the following chain of guiding actions: reception → selection → decision-making →
implementation of decisions (stimulation). What elements should carry out this
chain of guiding actions? The executive elements (for example, plains) cannot
do it, because they perform the action per se, for example, the capturing
action, but not guiding actions. For this reason they are also called executive elements.
All guiding actions should be accomplished by guiding elements (the control
block) and these should be a part of SFU. The control block consists of: “X” receptor
(segregates specific signal and detects the presence of external influence); afferent
channels (transfer of information from the receptor to analyzer); the
analyzer-informant (on the basis of the information from the “Х” receptor makes
decisions on the activation of executive elements); efferent cannels (of a
stimulator) (implementation of decision, channeling of the guiding actions to
the effectors).

The “Х” receptor, afferent
channels, analyzer-informant (activator of action) and efferent channels
(stimulator) comprise the control block. The receptor and afferent channels represent
direct positive communication (DPC). It is direct because inside SFU the guiding
signal (information on the presence of external influence) goes in the same
direction as the external influence itself. It is positive because if there is
a signal there is a reaction, if there is no signal, there is no reaction. Thus, the SFU
control block reacts to the external influence. It can feel and detect/segregate
specific signal of external influence from the multitude of other external
influences and depending on the presence or absence of specific signal it may
decide whether or not it should undertake its own action. Its own action is the
inducement (stimulation) of the executive elements to operate. There exist uncontrollable
and controllable SFU. The control block of uncontrollable SFU decides whether
or not it should act, and it would make such decision only depending on the presence
of the external influence. The control block of controllable SFU would also
decide whether or not it should act depending on the presence of the external
signal and in the presence of additional condition as well, i.e. the permission
to perform this action which is communicated to its command entry point. The uncontrollable SFU has one entry point for the external
influence and one outlet /exit point/ for the result of action. The logic of
work of such SFU is extremely simple: it would act if there is certain external
influence (result of action), and no result of action is produced in the
absence of external influence. For uncontrollable SFU the action regulator is the
external influence itself. It has its own management which function is
performed by the internal control block. But external management with such SFU
is impossible. It would “decide” on its own whether or not it should act. That
is why it is called uncontrollable. This decision would only depend on the presence
of external influence. In the presence of external influence it would function and
no external decision (not the influence) can change the internal decision of
this SFU. The uncontrollable SFU is independent of external decisions. It will
perform the action once it “made a decision”. The example of uncontrollable SFU
is, for instance, the nitroglycerine molecule (SFU for micro-explosion). If it is
shaken (external influence is shaking) it will start to disintegrate, thereby releasing
energy, and during this process nothing would stop its disintegration. The analogues
of uncontrollable SFU in a living organism are sarcomeres, ligands of
haemoglobin, etc. Once sarcomere starts to reduce, it would not stop until the
reduction is finished. Once the ligand of haemoglobin starts capturing oxygen,
it would not stop until the capturing process is finished. Unlike
uncontrollable SFU, the controllable SFU have two entry points (one for the
entry of external influence and another one for the entry of the command to the
analyzer) and one outlet/exit point/ for the result of action. The logic of
work of controllable SFU is slightly different from that of the uncontrollable SFU.
Such SFU will produce the result of action not only depending on the presence
of the external influence, but the presence of permission at the command entry
point. Implementation of action will start in the presence of certain external influence
and permission at the command entry point. The action would not be performed in
the presence of the external influence and the absence of permission at the
command entry point. For the controllable SFU the action regulator is the
permission at the command entry point. That is why such SFU are called controllable.
The analogues of controllable SFU in a living organism are, for example, pulmonary
functional ventilation units (FVU) or functional perfusion units (FPU), histic
functional perfusion units (FPU), secretion functional units (cells of various
secretion glands, SFU), kidney nephrons, liver acinuses, etc. The control block’s
elements are built of (assembled from) other ordinary elements suitable in
terms of their characteristics. It can be built both of executive elements combined
in a certain manner and simultaneously performing the function of both execution
and management, and from other executive elements not belonging to the given
group and segregated in a separate chain of management. In the latter case they
may be precisely the same as executive elements, but may be made of other
elements as well. For example, muscular contraction functional units consist of
muscular cells, but are managed by nervous centers consisting of nerve cells.
At the same time, all kinds of cells, both nerve and muscular, are built of
almost identical building materials – proteins, fats, carbohydrates and minerals. The difference
between the controllable and uncontrollable FSU is only in the availability of
command entry point. It is it that determines the change of the algorithm of
its work. Performance of the controllable SFU depends not only on the external
influence, but on the M disabling at the command entry point. The control block
is very simple, if it contains only DPC (the “Х” receptor and afferent channels),
the analyzer-informant and a stimulator. SFU are primary cells, executive elements of any
systems. As we can see, despite their elementary character, they represent a
fairly complex and multi-component object. Each of them contains not less than
two types of elements (management/control and executive) and each type includes
more and more, but these elements are mandatory attributes of any SFU. The SFU
complexity is the complexity of hierarchy of their elements. There is no any special
difference between the executive elements and the elements of management/control.
 Ultimately all in this world consists of electrons, protons and neutrons. The
difference between them lies only in their position in the hierarchy of
systems, i.e. in their positional relationship. The composite SFU contains 4
simple SFU. In the absence of the external influence all simple SFU are
inactive and no result of action is produced. In the presence of the external influence of
“Х”, if the command says “no” (disabling of /ban on action), all SFU would be inactive
and no result of action produced. In the presence of external influence and if the
command says “yes” (permission for action), all SFU would be active and the
result of action produced. The “capacity” of the composite SFU is 4 times higher
than the “capacity” of simple SFU. SFU is activated through the inputs of command
of their control blocks. Every simple SFU has its own DPC and DPC common for
all of them. Uncontrollable and controllable SFU may be used to build other
(composite) SFU, more powerful than single SFU. In the real world there are few
simple SFU which bring about minimal indivisible result of action. There are a
lot more of composite SFU. For instance, the cartridge filled with grains of
gunpowder is a constituent part of SFU (SFU for a shot), but its explosion energy
is much higher that that of single grain of gunpowder. The composite SFU flow
diagram is very similar to that of simple SFU. It is only quantity variance that
stipulates the difference between the composite and simple SFU. Simple SFU
contains only one SFU, just SFU itself, whereas the composite SFU contains several
SFU, so there is a possibility of strengthening of the result of action.
Thus, simple and composite SFU contain two types of elements: executive
elements (effectors performing specific actions for the achievement of the system’s
preset ovearll goal) and the elements of management (block) (DPC, the
analyzer-informant and the stimulator activating SFU). Composite SFU has the
same control block as the separate SFU, i.e. the elementary one with direct
positive (guiding) connection (DPC). Composite SFU perform based on the “all-or-none”
principle, too, i.e. they either produce maximal result of action in response to
external influence or wait for this external influence and do not perform any
actions. Composite SFU only differ from simple SFU in the force or amplitude of
reaction which is proportional to the number of simple SFU. If the domino dices are placed in a
sequential row the result of their action would be the lasting sound of the falling
dices which duration would be equal to the sum of series of drops of every dice
(extension of duration of the result of action). If the domino dices are placed
in a parallel row the result of their action would be the short, but loud sound
equal to the total sound volume resulting from the drop of each separate dice (capacity extension).
The performance cycle of an ideal simple and composite SFU is formed by micro cycles:
perception and selection of external influence by the “X” receptor and
decision-making; influence on the executive elements (SFU); response/operation
of executive elements (SFU); function termination. The “X” receptor starts to
operate following the onset of external influence (the 1st micro cycle).
 Subsequently some time would be spent for the decision-making, since this
decision itself is the result of action of certain SFU comprising the control
block (the 2nd micro cycle). Thereafter all SFU would be activated (joined
in) (the 3rd micro cycle). The operating time of the SFU response/operation
depends on the speed of utilization of energy spent for the SFU performance,
for example, the speed of reduction of sarcomere in a muscular cell which is determined
by speed of biochemical reactions in the muscular cell. After that all SFU terminate
their function (the 4th micro cycle). At that, the SFU spends its
entire energy it had and could use to perform this action. As far as the
sequence of actions and result of action would always be the same, the measure
of energy would always be the same as well (energy quantum). In order for the SFU
to be able to perform a new action it needs to be “recharged”. It may also take
some time (the time of charging). The way it happens is discussed in the
section devoted to passive and active systems (see below). Any SFU’s
performance cycle consists of these micro cycles. Therefore, its operating
cycle time would always be the same and equal to the sum of these micro cycles.
Once SFU started its actions, it would not stop until it has accomplished its full
cycle. This is the reason of uncontrollability of any SFU in the course of
their performance (absolute adiaphoria), whereby the external influence may
quickly finish and resume, but it would not stop and react to the new external
influence until the SFU has finished its performance. In real composite SFU these
micro cycles may be supplemented by micro cycles caused by imperfection of real
objects, for example, non-synchronism of the executive elements’ operation due to their
dissimilarity. Hence, it follows that even the elementary systems represented
by SFU do not react/operate immediately and they need some time to produce the
result of action. It is this fact that explains the inertness/lag effect/ of systems
which can be measured by using the time constant parameter. But generally
speaking it is not inertness/lag effect/, but rater a transitory (intermittent)
inertness of an object (adiaphoria), its inability to respond to the external
influence at certain phases of its performance. True inertness is explained by
independence of the result of action of the system which produced this result
(see below). Time constant is the time between the onset of external influence
and readiness for a new external influence after the achievement of the result of action. The analogues
of composite SFU are all objects which operate similarly to avalanche. The “domino
principle” works in such cases. One impact brings about the downfall of the
whole. However, the number of downfalls would be equal to the number of SFU. Pushing
one domino dice will cause its drop resulting just in one click. Pushing a row
of domino dices will result in as many clicks as is the number of dices in the
row. Biological analogues of composite SFU are, for example, functional ventilation
units (FVU), each of which consisting of large group (several hundred) of alveoli
which are simultaneously joining in process of ventilation or escape from it. Liver
acynuses, vascular segments of mesentery, pulmonary vascular functional units,
etc., are the analogues of composite SFU. Thus, simple SFU is the object which
can react to certain external influence, while the result of its performance
would always be maximal because the control block would not control it, i.e. it
works under the “all-or-none” law. The type of its reaction is caused by the type
of SFU. There are two kinds of simple SFU: uncontrollable and controllable.
Both react to the specific external influence. But additional external
permission signal at the command entry point is required for the operation of
controllable SFU, whereas the uncontrollable SFU have no command entry point.
Therefore, the uncontrollable SFU does not depend on any external guiding
signals. The control block of controllable and uncontrollable SFU consists of
the analyzer-informant and has only DPC (the “Х” informant and afferent
channels). The composite
Systemic Functional Unit is a kind of an object similar to
simple SFU, but the result of its action is stronger. It works under the “all-or-none”
law, too, and its reaction is stipulated by type and number of its SFU. It can
really be that the constituent parts of composite SFU may be controllable and
uncontrollable, and the difference between them may only be stipulated by the
presence of command entry point in the general control block through which the
permission for the performance of action is communicated. The control block of
a system is elementary, too, and has only DPC and analyzer-informant. Hence,
any SFU function under the “all-or-none” law. SFU is arranged in such a way
that it either does nothing, or gives out a maximal result of action. Its
elementary result of action is either delivered or not delivered. There might
be SFU which delivers the result of action, for example, twice as large as the
result of action of another SFU. But it will always be twice as large. Each
result of action of a simple SFU is quantum of action (indivisible portion), at
that being maximal for the given SFU. It is indivisible because SFU cannot deliver
part (for instance, half) of the result of action. And as far as it is “the
indivisible portion” there can not be a gradation. For instance, SFU may be
opened or closed, generate or not generate electric current, secrete or not
secrete something, etc. But it cannot regulate the quantity of the result of
action as its result always is either not delivered or is maximal. Such
operating mode is very rough, inaccurate and unfavorable both for the SFU per
se and its goal/objective. Let’s imagine that instead of a steering wheel in
our car there will be a device which will right away maximally swerve to the
right when we turn a steering wheel to the right or will maximally swerve to
the left if we turn it to the left. Instead of smooth and accurate trimming to follow
the designate course of movement the car will be harshly rushing about from
right to left and other way round. The goal will not be achieved and the car
will be destroyed. Basically the composite Systemic Functional Unit could have delivered
graded result of action since it has several SFU which it could actuate in a variable
sequence. But such system cannot do so because it “does not see” the result of
action and cannot compare it with what should be done/what it should be.

Quantity of the
result of action. To achieve the preset goal the designation of the quality of
the result of action only is not sufficient. The goal sets not only “what
action the object should deliver” (quality of the result of action), but also
“how much of this action” the given object should deliver (quantity of the
result of action). And the system should seek to perform exactly as much of
specific action as it is necessary, neither more nor less than that. The
quality of action is determined by SFU type. The quantity is determined by
the quantity of SFU. There are three quantitative characteristics of the result
of action: maximum, minimum and optimum quantity of action. In the real world
gradation of the results of action is required from the real systems.
Therefore, the system performance should deliver neither maximum nor minimum,
but optimum result. Optimum means performance based on the principle “it is
necessary and sufficient”. It is necessary that the result of action should be
such-and-such, but not another in terms of quality and adequate in terms of
quantity, neither more nor less. Hence, the SFU cannot be the full-fledged
systems. The systems are needed in which controllable/adjustable grading of the
result of action would be possible. For example, it is required that the
pressure of 100 mm Hg is maintained in the tissue capillaries. This phrase
encompasses presetting of everything what is included in the concept “necessary
and sufficient” at once. It is necessary… pressure, and it is enough… 10 mm
Hg. It is possible to collate the SFU providing pressure, but not of 10 mm Hg,
but, for instance, 100 mm Hg. It is too much. It is probably possible to
collate the SFU which can provide pressure of 10 mm Hg and at the moment it
might be sufficient. But if the situation has suddenly changed and the
requirement is now 100 mm Hg rather than 10 mm Hg, what should be done then?
Should one run about and search for SFU which may provide the 100 mm Hg? And
what if it’s impossible to make such system which would be able to provide any
pressure in a range, for example, from 0 to 100 mm Hg, depending on a
situation? In order to provide the quantity of the result of action which is
necessary at the moment, the grading of the results of action of systems is
required. It could have been achieved by building the systems from a set of
homotypic SFU of a type of composite SFU flow diagram. It has what is needed
for the graduation of the result of action as it contains numerous SFU. If it
could be possible to do it so that it enables actuating from one to all of SFU,
depending on the need, the result of action would have as much gradation as
many SFU is present in the system. The higher the required degree of accuracy,
the more of minor gradations of the result of action should be available.
Therefore, instead of one SFU with its extremely large scale result of action
it is necessary to use such amount of SFU with minor result of action which sum
is equal to the required maximum, while the accuracy of implementation of the
goal is equal to the result of action of one SFU. However, composite SFU has no
possibility to control the result of action as it has no the unit able of doing
it. To deliver the result of action precisely equal to the preset one, it (the
result of action) needs to be continually measured and measuring data compared
with the task (with command, with “database”). The “database” is a list of
those due values of result of action which the system should deliver depending
on the magnitude of external influence and algorithm of the control block
operation. The goal of the system is that each value of the measured external
influence should be corresponded by strictly determined value of the result of action (due
value). To this effect it is necessary “to see” (to measure) the result of
action of the system to compare it to the appropriate/due result. And for this
purpose the control block should have a “Y” receptor which can measure the
result of action and there should be a communication/transmission link
(reciprocal paths) through which the information from a “Y” receptor would pass
to the analyzer-informant, where the result of this measurement should be
compared with what should be/occur (with “database”). The control block of the
system should compare external influence with the due value, whereas the due
value should be compared with own result of action to see its conformity or
discrepancy with the due value. Composite SFU still can compare external influence
with eigen result of action, because it has DPC, whereas it can not any longer
compare due value with the result of eigen action just because it does not have
anything able of doing it (there are no appropriate elements).

Simple control
block (negative feedback — NF). In order for the control block of the system to
“see” (to feel and measure) the result of action of the system, it should have
a corresponding “Y” receptor at the outlet/exit point/ of system and the
communication link between it and a “Y” receptor (reciprocal path). The logic
of operation of such control consists in that if the scale of the result of
action is lager than that of the preset result it is necessary to reduce it,
having activated smaller number of SFU, and if it is small-scale it is
necessary to increase it by actuating larger number of SFU. For this reason
such link is called negative. And as the information moves back from the outlet
of system towards its beginning, it is called feedback/back action. As a result the
negative feedback (NF) occurs. A “Y” receptor and reciprocate path comprise NF
and together with the analyzer-informant and efferent cannels (stimulator) form
a NF loop. Depending on the need and based on the NF information the control
block would engage or disengage the functions of controllable SFU as
necessary. The difference of this system from the composite SFU lies only in
the presence of a “Y” receptor which measures the result of action and
reciprocal paths through which the information is transferred from this
receptor to the analyzer. The number of active SFU is determined by NF. The NF
is realized by means of NF loop which includes the “Y” receptor, reciprocal
path, through which information from “Y” receptor is transferred to the
analyzer-informant, analyzer proper and efferent channels through which the
control block decisions are transferred to the effectors (controllable SFU).
Thus, the system, unlike SFU, contains both DPC and NF. Direct positive
(controllable) communication activates the system, while negative feedback
determines the number of activated SFU. For example, if larger number of alveolar
capillaries in lungs will be opened compared to the number of the alveoli with
appropriate gas composition, arterialization of venous blood will be incomplete,
and there will be a need to close a part of alveolar capillaries which “wash”
by bloodstream the alveoli with gas composition not suitable for gas exchange.
If the number of such opened capillaries will be smaller, overloading of
pulmonary blood circulation would occur and the pressure in pulmonary artery
will increase and there will be a need to open part of alveolar capillaries. In
any case the informant of pulmonary blood circulation would snap into action
and the control block would decide what part of capillaries needs to be opened
or closed. Hence, the diffusion part of vascular channel of pulmonary
bloodstream is the system containing simple control block. The goal of
the system is that the result of action of “Y” should be equal to the command
“M” (Y=M). Actions of system aimed at the achievement of goal are implemented
by executive elements. Control block would watch the accuracy of implementation
of actions. The control block containing DPC and NF loop is simple. The
algorithm of simple control blocks operation is not complex. The NF loop would
trace continually the result of performance of executive elements (SFU). If the
result of action turns out to be of a larger scale than the preset result, it
needs to be reduced, and if the result is of a smaller scale than the preset
one it needs to be increased. Control parameters (the “database”) are set
through the command; for example, what should be the correlation between
external influence and the result of action, or what level of the result of
action will need to be retained, etc. At that, the maximum accuracy would be
the result of action of one SFU (quantum of action). Systems with NF, as well as
composite SFU, also contain two types of objects: executive elements (SFU) (effectors
which carry out specific actions for the achievement of the preset overall goal of the system)
and the control block (DPC and NF loop). But besides the “Х” informant, control
block of the system also contains the “Y” informant (NF). Therefore, it has
information both on the external influence and the result of action. Some
complexification of the control block brings about a very essential result. The
reason for such a complexification is the need to achieve optimally accurate
implementation of the goal of the system. The NF ensures the possibility of
regulation of quantity of the result of action, i.e. the system with NF may
perform any required action in an optimal way, from minimum to maximum,
accurate to one quantum of action. Generally speaking, any real system at that
has the third type of objects: service elements, i.e. substructure elements
without which executive elements cannot operate. For example, the aircraft has
wings to fly, but it also has wheels to take off and land.  The haemoglobin
molecule contains haem which contains 4 SFU (ligands) and globin, the protein
which does not participate directly in transportation of oxygen but without
which haem cannot work. We have slightly touched upon the issue of existence of
the third type of objects (service elements) for one purpose only to know that
they are always present in any system, but we will not go into detail of their
function. We will only note that they represent the same ordinary systems aimed
at serving other systems. Systems with NF can solve most of the tasks in a far
better manner than simple or composite SFU. The presence of NF almost does not
complexicate the system.  We have seen that even simple SFU is a very complex
formation including a set of components. Composite SFU is as many times more complex
compared to simple SFU as is the number almost equal to that of simple
SFU. The system with NF is only supplemented by one receptor and the
communication link between receptor and analyzer (reciprocal path). But the
effect of such change in the structure of control block is very large-scale and
only depends on the algorithm of the control block operation. Any SFU (simple
and composite) can implement only minimum or maximum action. Systems with NF
can surely deliver the optimal result of action, from minimum to maximum; they
are accurate and stable. Their accuracy depends only on the value of quantum of
action of separate SFU and the NF profundity/intensity/ (see below). Stability
is stipulated by that the system always “sees” the result of action and can
compare it with the appropriate/due one and correct it if divergence occurs. In
real systems the causes for the divergence are always present, since they exist
in the real world where there always exists perturbation action/disturbing
influences. Hence, one can see that it is NF that turns SFU into real
systems. How does the control block manage the system? What parameters are
characteristic of it? Any control block is characterized by three DPC
parameters and the same number of NF loop parameters. For DPC it is a minimal
level of controllable input stimulus (threshold of sensitivity); maximal level of controllable
input stimulus (range of input stimulus sensitivity); time of engagement of
control (decision-making
time). For NF loop it is minimal level of controllable result of
action (threshold of sensitivity of NF loop – NF profundity/intensity); maximal
level of controllable result of action (range of sensitivity of the result of
action); time of engagement of control (decision-making time). Minimal level
of controllable input signal for DPC is the sensitivity threshold of signal of
the “Х” receptor wherefrom the analyzer-informant recognizes that the external
influence has already begun. For example, if рО2 has reached 60 mm Hg the sphincter should be opened (1 SFU is
actuated), if the рО2 value is smaller,
then it is closed. Any values of рО2 smaller than 60 mm Hg would not lead to the opening of sphincter,
because these are sub-threshold values. Consequently, 60 mm Hg is the
operational threshold of sphincter. Maximum level of controllable entrance
signal (range) for DPC is the level of signal about external influence at which
all SFU are actuated. The system cannot react to the further increase in the
input signal by the extension of its function, as it does not have any more of
SFU reserves. For example, if рО2 has reached 100 mm Hg all sphincters should be opened (all SFU
are activated). Any values of рО2 larger than 100 mm Hg will not lead to the opening of additional
sphincters, because all of them are already opened, i.e. the values of 60-100
mm Hg are the range of activation of the system of sphincters. Time of
DPC activation is a time interval between the onset of external influence and
the beginning of the system’s operation. The system would never respond
immediately after the onset of external influence. Receptors need to feel a
signal, the analyzer-informant needs to make the decision, the effectors
transfer the guiding impact to the command entry points of the executive
elements — all this takes time. The minimal level of the controllable exit
signal for NF is a threshold of sensitivity of a signal of the “Y” receptor,
wherefrom the analyzer-informant recognizes whether there is a discrepancy
between the result of action of the system and its due value. The discrepancy
should be equal to or more than the quantum of action of single SFU. For
example, if one sphincter is to be opened and the bloodstream should be minimal
(one quantum of action), whereas two sphincters are actually opened and the bloodstream
is twice as intensive (two quanta of action), the “Y” receptor should feel an
extra quantum. If it is able of doing so, its sensitivity is equal to one
quantum. Sensitivity is defined by the NF profundity/intensity. The NF
profundity/intensity is a number of quanta of action of the single SFU system
which sum is identified as the discrepancy between the actual and
appropriate/proper action. The NF profundity/intensity is preset by the command. The
highest possible NF profundity/intensity is the sensitivity of discrepancy in
one quantum of action of single SFU. The less the NF profundity/intensity, the
less is sensitivity, the more it is “rough”. In other words, the less the NF profundity/intensity,
the larger value of the discrepancy between the result of action and the proper
result is interpreted as discrepancy. For example, even two (three, ten, etc.)
quanta of action of two (three, ten, etc.) SFU is interpreted as discrepancy.
Minimal NF profundity/intensity is its absence. In this case any discrepancy of
the result of action with the proper one is not interpreted by the control
block as discrepancy. The result of action would be maximal and the system with
simple control block with zero NF profundity/intensity would turn into
composite SFU with DPC (with simplest/elementary control block). For example,
the system of the Big Circle of Blood circulation for microcirculation
in fabric capillaries should hold average pressure of 100 mm Hg accurate to 1
mm Hg. At the same time, average arterial pressure can fluctuate from 80 to 200
mm Hg. The value “100 mm Hg” determines the level of controllable result of
action. The value “from 80 to 200 mm Hg” is the range of controllable external
(entry) influence. The value of “1 mm Hg” is determined by NF
profundity/intensity. Smaller NF profundity/intensity would control the
parameter with smaller degree of accuracy, for example, to within 10 mm Hg
(more roughly) or 50 mm Hg (even more roughly), while the higher NF
profundity/intensity would do it with higher degree of accuracy, for example to
within 0.1 mm Hg (finer). Maximal NF sensitivity is limited to the value of
quantum of action of SFU which are part of the system, and the NF profundity/intensity.
But in any case, if discrepancy between the level of the controllable and
preset parameters occurs to the extent higher than the value of the preset
accuracy, the NF loop should “feel” this divergence and “force” executive
elements to perform so that to eliminate the discrepancy of the goal and the
result of action. Maximal level of controllable outlet/exit signal (range) for
NF is the level of signal about the result of action of the system at which all
SFU are actuated. The system cannot react to the further increase in entry
signal by increase in its function any more, because it has no more of SFU
reserves. The time of actuating of NF control is the time interval between the
onset of discrepancy of signal about the result of action with the preset
result and the beginning of the system’s operation. All these parameters can be
“built in” DPC and NF loops or set primordially (the command is entered at their
“birth” and they do not further vary any more), or can be entered through the
command later, and these parameters can be changed by means of input of a
new command from the outside. For this purpose there should be a channel of
input of the command. Simple control block in itself cannot change any of these
parameters. Absolutely all systems have control block, but it cannot be always
found explicitly. In the aircraft or a spaceship this block is presented by the
on-board computer, a box with electronics. In human beings and animals such
block is the brain, or at least nervous system. But where is the control block
located in a plant or bacterium? Where is the control block located in atom or
molecule, or, for example, the control block in a nail? The easier the system, the more
difficult it is for us to single out forms of control block habitual for us.
However, it is present in any systems. Executive elements are responsible for
the quality of result of action, while the control block – for its quantity.
The control block can be, for example, intra- or internuclear and
intermolecular connections/bonds. For example, in atom the SFU functions are
performed by electrons, protons and neutrons, and those of control block by
intra-nuclear forces or, in other words, interactions. The intra-atomic
command, for example, is the condition that there can be no more than 2
electrons at the first electronic level, 8 electrons at the second level, etc.,
(periodic law determined by Pauli principle), this level being rigidly
designated by quantum numbers. If the electron has somewise received additional
energy and has risen above its level it cannot retain it for a long time and
will go back, thereby releasing surplus of energy in the form of a photon. At
that, not just any energy can lift the electron onto the other level, but only
and only specific one (the corresponding quantum of energy). It also rises not
just onto any level, but only onto the strictly preset one. If the energy of
the external influence is less than the corresponding quantum, the electron
level stabilization system would keep it in a former orbit (in a former
condition) until the energy of external influence exceeded the corresponding
level. If the energy of external influence is being continually accrued in a
ramp-up mode, the electron would rise from one level to other not in a linear
mode but by leaps (which are strictly defined by quantum laws) into higher
orbits as soon as the energy of influence exceeds certain threshold levels. The
number of levels of an electron’s orbit in atom is probably very large and
equal to the number of spectral lines of corresponding atom, but each level is
strictly fixed and determined by quantum laws. Hence, some kind of mechanism
(system of stabilization of quantum levels) strictly watches the performance of
these laws, and this mechanism should have its own SFU and control blocks. The
number of levels of the electron’s orbit is possibly determined by the number
of intranuclear SFU (protons and neutrons or other elementary particles), which
result of action is the positioning of electron in an electronic orbit. For
example, in a nail system the command would be its form and geometrical values. This
command is entered into the control block one-time at the moment of nail
manufacture when its values (at the moment of its “birth”) are measured and is
not entered later any more. But when the command is already entered the system
should execute this command, i.e. in this case the nail should keep its form and values
even if it is being hammered. In any control block type the command should be entered into at some point
of time in one way or another. We cannot make just a nail “in general”,
but only the one with concrete form and preset values. Therefore, at the moment
of its manufacture (i.e. one-time) we give it the “task” to be of
such-and-such form and values. The command can vary if there is a channel of
input of the command. For example, when turning on the air conditioner we can
“give it a task” to hold air temperature at 20°С and thereafter change the
command for 25°С. The nail does not have a channel of input of the order, while
the air conditioner does. Consequently, the system with simple control block is
the object which can react to certain external influence, and the result of its action is
graduated and stable. The number of gradation is determined by the number SFU
in the system and the accuracy is determined by quantum of action (the size,
result) of single SFU and NF profundity/intensity. The result of action is
accurate because the control block supervises it by means of NF. Type of
control is based on mismatch/error plus error-rate control/. Control would only
start after the occurrence of external influence or delivery of the result of
action. Stability of the result of action is determined by NF
profundity/intensity. System reaction is conditioned by type and number of its
SFU. Simple control block has three channels of control: one external (command)
and two internal (DPC and NF). It reacts to external influence through DPC (the
“Х” informant) and to its own result of action of the system (the “Y” informant)
through NF, whereas it controls executive elements of the system through
efferent channels. Analogues of systems with simple control block are all
objects of inanimate/inorganic world: gas clouds, crystals, various solid
bodies, planets, planetary and stellar systems, etc. Biological analogues of
systems with simple control block are protophytes and metaphytes, bacteria and
all vegetative/autonomic systems of an organism, including, for example,
external gas exchange system, blood circulation system, external gaseous
metabolism system, digestion or immune systems. Even single-celled animal
organisms of amoebas and infusorian type, inferior animal classes (jellyfish
etc.) are the systems with complex control blocks/units (see below). All
vegetative and many motor reflexes of higher  animals which actuate at all
levels starting from intramural nerve ganglia through hypothalamus are
structured as simple control blocks. If they are affected by guiding influence
of cerebral cortex, higher type (complex) reflexes come into service (see
below). Analogues of the “Х” informant receptors are all sensitive receptors
(haemo-, baro-, thermo- and other receptors located in various bodies, except
visual, acoustical and olfactory receptors which are part of the “C” informant,
see below). Analogues of the “Y” informant receptors are all proprio-sensitive
receptors which can also be haemo-, baro-, thermo- and other receptors located
in different organs. Analogues of the control block stimulators are all motor
and effector nerves stimulating cross-striped, unstriated muscular systems and
secretory cells, as well as hormones, prostaglandins and other metabolites
having any effect on the functions of any systems of organism. Analogues of the
analyzer-informant in the mineral and vegetative media are only
connections/bonds between the elements of a type of direct connection of “X”
and “Y” informants with effectors (axon reflexes). In vegetative systems of animals
connections are also of a type of direct connection of “X” and “Y” informants
with effectors (humoral and metabolic regulation), as well as axon reflex
(controls only nervules without involvement of nerve cell itself) and
unconditioned reflexes (at the level of intra-organ intramural and other
neuronic formations right up to hypothalamus). Thus, using DPC and NF and
regulating the performance of its SFU the system produces the results of action
qualitatively and quantitatively meeting the preset goal.

Principle of
independence of the result of action. As it was already repeatedly underlined,
the purpose/goal of any system is to get the appropriate/due (target-oriented)
result of action arising from the performance of the system. Actually external
influence, “having entered” the system, would be transformed to the result of action
of the system. That is why systems are actually the converters of external
influence into the result of action and of the cause into effect. External
influence is in turn the result of action of other system which interacted with
the former. Consequently, the result of action, once it has “left” one system
and “entered” into another, would now exist independently of the system which
produced it. For example, a civil engineering firm had a goal to build a house
from certain quantity of building material (external influence). After a number
of actions of this firm the house was built (the result of action). The firm
could further proceed to the construction of other house, or cease to exist or change the line
of business from construction to sewing shop. But the constructed house will
already exist independently of the firm which constructed it. The purpose of
the automobile engine (the car subsystem) is burning certain quantity of fuel
(external influence for the engine) to receive certain quantity of mechanical
energy (the result of action of the engine). The purpose of a running gear
(other subsystem of the car) is transformation of mechanical energy of the
engine (external influence for running gear) into certain number of revolutions
of wheels (result of action of running gear). The purpose of wheels is
transformation of certain number of revolutions (external influence for wheels)
into the kilometers of travel (result of action of wheels). All in all, the
result of action of the car will be kilometers of travel which will already
exist independently of the car which has driven them through. Photon released
from atom which can infinitely roam the space of the Universe throughout many
billions years will be the result of action of the exited electron. Result of a
slap of an oar by water is the depression/hollow on the water surface which
could have also remained there forever if it were not for the fluidity of water
and the influence on it of thousand other external influences. However, after
thousand influences it will not any more remain in the form of
depression/hollow, but in the form of other long chain of results of actions of
other systems because nothing disappears in this world, but transforms into
other forms. Conservation law is inviolable.

System cycles and
transition processes. Systems just like SFU have cycles of their activity as
well. Different systems can have different cycles of activity and they depend
on the complexity and algorithm of the control block. The simplest cycle of
work is characteristic of a system with simple control block. It is formed of
the following micro cycles: perception, selection and measurement of external
influence by the “X” receptor; selection from “database” of due value of the
result of action; transition process (NF multi-micro-cycle);

a) perception and
measurement of the result of action by the “Y” receptor — b) comparison of this
result with the due value – c) development of the decision and corresponding
influence on SFU for the purpose of correction of the result of action – d)
influence on SFU, if the result of action is not equal to the appropriate/due
one, or transition to the 1st micro cycle if it is equal to the
proper one – e) actuation of SFU – f) return to “a)”.

After the onset of
external influence the “X” receptor would snap into action (1st
micro cycle). Thereafter the value of the result of action which has to
correspond to the given external influence (2nd micro cycle) is
selected from the “database”. It is then followed by transition process
(transition period, 3rd multi-micro-cycle, NF cycle): actuation of
the “Y” receptor, comparison of the result of action with the due value
selected from the “database”, corrective influence on SFU (the number of
actuated SFU mill be the one determined by control block in the micro cycle
“c”) and again return to the actuation of the “Y” receptor. It would last in
that way until the result of action is equal to the preset one. From this point the purpose/goal is reached and after
that the control block comes back to the 1st micro cycle, to the
reception of external influence. System performance for the achievement of the
result of action would not stop until there new external influence emerges. The
aforementioned should be supplemented by a very essential addition. It has
already been mentioned when we were examining the SFU performance cycles that
after any SFU is actuated it completely spends all its stored energy intended
for the performance of action. Therefore, after completion of action SFU is
unable of performing any new action until it restores its power capacity, and
it takes additional time which can substantially increase the duration of the
transition period. That is why a speed of movement (e.g., running) of a sportsman’s
body whose system of oxygen delivery to the tissues is large (high speed of
energy delivery) would be fast as well. And the speed of movement of a cardiac
patient’s body would be slow because the speed of energy delivery is reduced
due to the affection of blood circulation system which is a part of the body’s
system of power supply. Sick persons spent a long time to restore energy
potential of muscular cells because of the delayed ATP production that requires
a lot of oxygen. Micro cycles from 1st to 2nd constitute
the starting period of control block performance. In case of short-term
external influence control block would determine it during the start cycle and
pass to the transition period during which it would seek to achieve the actual
result of action equal to the proper one. If external influence appears again
during the transition period the control block will not react to it because
during this moment it would not measure “Х” (refractory phase). Upon
termination of the transition period the control block would go back/resort/ to
the starting stage, but while it does so (resorts), the achieved due value of
the result of action would remain invariable (the steady-state period). If
external influence would be long enough and not vary so that after the first
achievement of the goal the control block has time to resort to reception “X”
again, the steady value of the result of action would be retained as long as
the external influence continues. At that, the transition cycle will not start,
because the steady-state value of the result of action is equal to the
proper/due one. If long external influence continues and changes its amplitude,
the onset of new transition cycle may occur. At that, the more the change in
the amplitude of external influence, the larger would be the amplitude of
oscillation of functions. Therefore, sharp differences of amplitude of external
influence are inadmissible, since they cause diverse undesirable effects
associated with transition period.

If external
influence is equal to zero, all SFU are deactivated, as zero external influence
is corresponded by zero activation of SFU. If, after a short while there would
be new external influence, the system would repeat all in a former order.
Duration of the system performance cycle is also seriously affected by
processes of restoration of energy potential of the actuated SFU. Every SFU,
when being actuated, would spend definite (quantized) amount of energy, which
is either brought in by external influence per se or is being accumulated by
some subsystems of power supply of the given system. In any case, energy
potential restoration also needs time, but we do not consider these processes
as they associated only with the executive elements (SFU), while we only
examine the processes occurring in the control blocks of the systems. Thus, the
system continually performs in cycles, while accomplishing its micro cycles. In
the absence of external influence or if it does not vary, the system would
remain at one of its stationary levels and in the same functional condition
with the same number of functioning SFU, from zero to all. In such a mode it
would not have transition multi-micro-cycle (long-time repeat of the 3rd
micro cycle). Every change of level of external influence causes transition processes.
Transition of function to a new level would only become possible when the
system is ready to do it. Such micro cycles in various systems may differ in
details, but all systems without exception have the NF multi-micro-cycle. With
all its advantages the NF has a very essential fault, i.e. the presence of
transition processes. The intensity of transition process depends on a variety
of factors. It can range from minimal to maximal, but transition processes are
always present in all systems in a varying degree of intensity. They are
unavoidable in essence, since NF actuates as soon as the result of action of
the system is produced. It would take some time until affectors of the system feel a mismatch, until the control block
makes corresponding decision, until effectors execute this decision, until the
NF measures the result of action and corrects the decision and the process is
repeated several times until necessary correlation “… external influence →
result of action…” is achieved. Therefore, at this time there can be any
unexpected nonlinear transition processes breaking normal operating mode of the
system. For this reason at the time of the first “actuation” of the system or
in case of sharp loading variations it needs quite a long period of setting/adjustment.
And even in the steady-state mode due to various casual fluctuations in the
environment there can be a minor failure in the NF operation and minor
transition processes (“noise” of the result of action of real system). The
presence of transition processes imposes certain restrictions on the
performance and scope of use of systems. Slow inertial systems are not suitable
for fast external influences as the speed of systems’ operation is primarily
determined by the speed of NF loop operation. Indeed, the speed of executive
element’s operation is the basis of the speed of system operation on the whole,
but NF multi-micro-cycle contributes considerably to the extension of the
system’s operation cycle. Therefore, when choosing the load on the living
organism it is necessary to take into consideration the speed of system
operation and to select speed of loading so as to ensure the least intensity of
transition processes. The slower the variation of external influence, the
shorter is the transition process. Transition period becomes practically
unapparent when the variation of external influence is sufficiently slow.
Consequently, if external influence varies, the duration of transition period
may vary from zero to maximum depending on the speed of such variation and the
speed of operation of the system’s elements. Transition period is the process
of transition from one level of functional state to another. The “smaller” the
steps of transition from one level on another, the less is the amplitude of transition
processes. In case of smooth change of loading no transition processes take
place. The intensity of transition processes depends on the SFU caliber, force
of external influence, duration of SFU charging, sensitivity of receptors, the
time of their operation, the NF intensity/profundity and algorithm of the
control block operation. But these cycles of systems’ performance and
transition processes are present both in atoms and electronic circuitry,
planetary systems and all other systems of our World, including human body.

If systems did not
have transition processes, transition process period would have been always
equal to zero and the systems would have been completely inertia-free. But such
systems are non-existent and inertness is inherent in a varying degree in any
system. For example, in electronics the presence of transition processes
generates additional harmonics of electric current fluctuations in various
amplifiers or current generators. Sophisticated circuit solutions are applied
to suppress thereof, but they are present in any electronic devices,
considerably suppressed though. Time constant of systems with simple control
blocks includes time constants of every SFU plus changeable durations of NF
transition periods. Therefore, constant of time of such systems is not quite
constant since duration of NF transition periods can vary depending on the
force of external impact. Transition processes in systems with simple control
blocks increase the inertness of such systems. Inertness of systems leads to
various phase disturbances of synchronization and balance of interaction
between systems. There are numerous ways to deal with transition processes.
External impacts may be filtered in such a way that to prevent from
sharp shock impacts (filtration, a principle of graduality of loading). Knowing
the character of external impacts/influences in advance and foreseeing thereof
which requires seeing them first (and it can only be done, at the minimum, by
complex control blocks) would enable designing of such an appropriate algorithm
of control block operation which would ensure finding correct decision by the 3rd
micro cycle (prediction based control/management). However, it is only feasible for intellectual
control blocks. Apparently it’s impossible for us to completely get rid of the
systems’ inertness so far. Therefore, if the external impact/influence does not
vary and the transition processes are practically equal to zero the system
would operate cyclically and accurately on one of its stationary levels, or
smoothly shift from one stationary level to another if external influence
varies, but does it quite slowly. If transition processes become notable, the
system operation cycles become unequal due to the emergence of transition
multi-micro-cycles, i.e. period of transition processes. At that, nonlinear
effects reduce the system’s overall performance. In our everyday life we often
face transition processes when, being absolutely unprepared, we leave a warm
room and get into the cold air outside and catch cold. In the warm room all
systems of our organism were in a certain balance of interactions and
everything was all right. But here we got into the cold air outside and all
systems should immediately re-arrange on a new balance. If they have no time to
do it and highly intensive transition processes emerge that cause unexpected
fluctuations of results of actions of body systems, imbalance of interactions
of systems occurs which is called “cold” (we hereby do not specify the
particulars associated with the change of condition of the immune system).
After a while the imbalance would disappear and the cold would be over as well.
If we make ourselves fit, we can train our “control blocks” to foresee sharp
strikes of external impacts to reduce transition processes; we then will be
able even to bathe in an ice hole. Transition processes of special importance
for us are those arising from sharp change of situation around us.
Stress-syndrome is directly associated with this phenomenon. The sharper the
change of the situation around us, the more it gets threatening (external
influence is stronger), the sharper transition processes are, right up to
paradoxical reactions of a type of stupor. At that, the imbalance of
performance of various sites of nervous system (control blocks) arises, which
leads to imbalance of various systems of organism and the onset of various
pathological reactions and processes of a type of vegetative neurosis and
depressions, ischaemia up to infarction and ulcers, starting from mouth cavity (aphtae)
to large intestine ulcers (ulcerative colitis, gastric and duodenum ulcers,
etc.), arterial hypertension, etc.

Cyclic recurrence
is a property of systems not of a living organism only. Any system operates in
cycles. If external influence is retained at a stable level, the system would
operate based on this minimal steady-state cycle. But external influence may
change cyclically as well, for example, from a sleep to sleep, from dinner to
dinner, etc. These are in fact secondary, tertiary, etc., cycles. Provided
constructing the graphs of functions of a system, we get wavy curves
characterizing recurrence. Examples include pneumotachogram, electrocardiogram
curves, curves of variability of gastric juice acidity, sphygmogram curves,
curves of electric activity of neurons, periodicity of the EEG alpha rhythm,
etc. Sea waves, changes of seasons, movements of planets, movements of trains,
etc., — these are all the examples of cyclic recurrence of various systems. The
forms of cyclic recurrence curves may be of all sorts. The electrocardiogram
curve differs from the arterial pressure curve, and the arterial pressure curve
differs from the pressure curve in the aortic ventricle. Variety of cyclic
recurrence curves is infinite. Two key parameters characterize recurrence: the
period (or its reciprocal variable — frequency) and nonuniformity of the
period, which concept includes the notion of frequency harmonics. Nonuniformity
of the cycle period should not be resident in SFU (the elementary system) as
its performance cycles are always identical. However, the systems have
transition periods which may have various cycle periods. Besides, various
systems have their own cyclic periods and in process of interaction of systems
interference (overlap) of periods may occur. Therefore, additional shifting of
own systems’ periods takes place and   harmonics of cycles emerge. The number
of such wave overlaps can be arbitrary large. That is why in reality we observe
a very wide variety of curves: regular sinusoids, irregular curves, etc.
However, any curves can be disintegrated into constituent waves thereof, i.e.
disintegration of interference into its components using special analytical
methods, e.g. Fourier transformations. Resulting may be a spectrum of simpler
waves of a sinusoid type. The more detailed (and more labour-consuming, though)
the analysis, the nearer is the form of each component to a sinusoid and the
larger is the number of sinusoidal waves with different periods.

The period of
system cycle is a very important parameter for understanding the processes
occurring in any system, including in living organisms. Its duration depends on
time constant of the system’s reaction to external impact/influence. Once the
system starts recurrent performance cycle, it would not stop until it has not
finished it. One may try to affect the system when it has not yet finished the
cycle of actions, but the system’s reaction to such interference would be
inadequate. The speed of the system’s functions progression depends completely
on the duration of the system performance cycle. The longer the cycle period,
the slower the system would transit from one level to another. The concepts of
absolute and relative adiaphoria are directly associated with the concept of
period and phase of system cycle. If, for example, the myocardium has not
finished its “systole-diastole” cycle, extraordinary (pre-term) impulse of
rhythm pacemaker or extrasystolic impulse cannot force the ventricle to produce
adequate stroke release/discharge. The value of stroke discharge may vary from
zero to maximum possible, depending on at which phase of adiphoria period
extrasystolic impulse occurs. If the actuating pulse falls on the 2nd
and 3rd micro cycles, the myocardium would not react to them at all
(absolute adiphoria), since information from the “X” receptor is not measured
at the right time. Myocardium, following the contraction, would need, as any
other cell would do following its excitation, some time to restore its energy
potential (ATP accumulation) and ensure setting of all SFU in “startup”
condition. If extraordinary impulse emerges at this time, the system’s response
might be dependent on the amount of ATP already accumulated or the degree in
which actomyosin fibers of myocardium sarcomeres diverged/separated in order to
join in the function again (relative adiphoria). Excitability of an unexcited
cell is the highest. At the moment of its excitation excitability sharply falls to
zero (all SFU in operation, 2nd micro cycle) – absolute adiphoria.
Thereafter, if there is no subsequent excitation, the system would gradually
restore its excitability, while passing through the phases of relative
adiphoria up to initial or even higher level (super-excitability, which is not
examined in this work) and then again to initial level. Therefore, pulse
irregularity may be observed in patients with impaired cardial function, when
sphygmic beats are force-wise uneven. Extreme manifestation of such
irregularity is the so-called “Jackson’s symptom” /pulse deficiency/, i.e. cardiac
electric activity is shown on the electrocardiogram, but there is no its
mechanical (haemodynamic) analogue on the sphygmogram and sphygmic beats are
not felt when palpating the pulse. The main conclusions from all the above are
as follows: any systems operate in cycles passing through micro cycles; any
system goes through transition process; cycle period may differ in various
systems depending on  time constant of the system’s reaction to the external
impact/influence (in living systems – on the speed of biochemical reactions and
the speed of command/actuating  signals); irregularity of the system’s cycle
period depends on the presence of transition processes, consequently, to a
certain degree on the force of external exposure/influence; irregularity of the
system cycle period depends on overlapping of cycle periods of interacting
systems; upon termination of cycle of actions after single influence the system
reverts to the original state, in which it was prior to the beginning of
external influence (one single result of action with one single external
influence). The latter does not apply to the so-called generating systems. It
is associated with the fact that after the result of action has been achieved
by the system, it becomes independent of the system which produced it and may
become external influence in respect to it. If it is conducted to the external
influence entry point of the same system, the latter would again get excited
and again produce new result of action (positive feedback, PF). This is how all
generators work. Thus, if the first external influence affects the system or
external influence is ever changing, the number of functioning SFU systems
varies. If no external influence is exerted on the system or is being exerted
but is invariable, the number of functioning system SFU would not vary. Based
on the above we can draw the definitions of stationary conditions and dynamism
of process.

Functional
condition of system. Functional condition of the system is defined by the
number of active SFU. If all SFU function simultaneously, it shows high
functional condition which arises in case of maximum external influence. If
none SFU is active it shows minimum functional condition. It may occur in the
absence of external influence. External environment always
exerts some kind of influence on some systems, including the systems of
organism. Even in quiescent state the Earth gravitational force makes part of
our muscles work and consequently absolute rest is non-existent. So, when we
are kind of in quiescent state we actually are in one of the low level states
of physical activity with the corresponding certain low level of functional
state of the organism. Any external influence requiring additional vigorous
activity would transfer to a new level of a functional condition unless the SFU
reserve is exhausted. When new influence is set at a new invariable
(stationary) level, functional condition of a system is set on a new invariable
(stationary) functional level.

Stationary
states/modes. Stationary state is such a mode of systems when one and the same
number of SFU function and no change occurs in their functional state. For
example, in quiescence state all systems of organism do not change their
functional mode as far as about the same number of SFU is operational. A female
runner who runs a long distance for quite a long time without changing the
speed is also in a stationary state/mode. Her load does not vary and
consequently the number of working (functioning) SFU does not change
either, i.e. the functional state of her organism does not change. Her organism
has already “got used” to this unchangeable loading and as there is no increase
of load there is no increase in the number of working SFU, too. The number of
working SFU remains constant and therefore the functional state/mode of the
organism does not change. What may change in this female runner’s body is, e.g.
the status of tissue energy generation system and the status of tissue energy
consumption system, which is in fact the process of exhaustion of organism.
However, if the female runner has duly planned her run tactics so that not to
find herself in condition of anaerobic metabolism, the condition of external
gas metabolism and blood circulation systems would not change. So, regardless
of whether or not physical activity is present, but if it does not vary
(stationary physical loadings /steady state/, provided it is adequate to the
possibilities of the organism), the organism of the subject would be in a
stationary state/mode. But if the female runner runs in conditions of anaerobic
metabolism the “vicious circle” will be activated and functional condition of
her organism will start change steadily to the worse. (The vicious circle is the system’s reaction to its own result of
action. Its basis is hyper reaction of system to routine influence, since the
force of routine external influence is supplemented by the eigen result of
action of the system which is independent of the latter and presents external
influence in respect to it. Thus, routine external influence plus the influence
of the system’s own result of action all in all brings about hyper influence
resulting in hyper reaction of the system (system overload). The outcome of
this reaction is the destruction own SFU coupled with accumulation of defects
and progressing decline in the quality of life. At the initial stages while
functional reserves are still large, the vicious circle becomes activated under
the influence of quite a strong external action (heavy load condition). But in
process of SFU destruction and accumulation of defects the overload of adjacent
systems and their destruction would accrue (the domino principle), whereas the
level of load tolerance would recede and with the lapse of time even weak
external influences will cause vicious circle actuation and may prove to be
excessive. Eventually even the quiescent state will be the excessive loading
for an organism with destroyed SFU which condition is incompatible with life.
Usually termination of loading would discontinue this vicious circle.

Dynamic processes.
Dynamic process is the process of changing functional state/mode/condition of
the system. The system is in dynamic process when the change in the number of
its actuated SFU occurs. The number of continually actuated SFU would determine
stationary state/mode/condition of the system. Hence, dynamic process is the
process of the system’s transition from one stationary level to another. If the
speed of change in external influences exceeds the speed of fixing the preset
result of action of the system, transition processes (multi-micro-cycles) occur
during which variation of number of functioning SFU also takes place.
Therefore, these transition processes are also dynamic. Consequently, there are
two types of dynamic processes: when the system is shifting from one stationary
condition (level) to another and when it is in transient multi-micro-cycle. The
former is target-oriented, whereas the latter is caused by imperfection of systems
and is parasitic, as its actions take away additional energy which was intended
for target actions. When the system is in stationary condition some definite
number of SFU (from zero to all) is actuated. The minimum step of change of
level of functional condition is the value determined by the level of operation
of one SFU (one quantum of action). Hence, basically transition from one level
of functional condition to another is always discrete (quantized) rather than
smooth, and this discrecity is determined by the SFU “caliber”. Then umber of
stationary conditions is equal to the number of SFU of the system. Systems with
considerable quantity of “small” SFU would pass through dynamic processes more
smoothly and without strenuous jerks, than systems with small amount of “large”
SFU. Hence, dynamic process is characterized by an amplitude of increment of
the system’s functions from minimum to maximum (the system’s minimax; depends
on its absolute number of SFU), discrecity or pace of increment of functions (depends
on the “caliber” or quantum of individual SFU) and parameters of the function’s
cyclic recurrence (speed of increase of actions of system, the period of phases
of a cycle, etc.). It can be targeted or parasitic. It should be noted that
stationary condition is also a process, but it’s the steady-state (stationary)
process. In such cases the condition of systems does not vary from cycle to
cycle. But during each cycle a number of various dynamic processes take place
in the system as the system itself consists of subsystems, each of which in
turn consists of cycles and processes. The steady-state process keeps system in
one and the same functional condition and at one and the same stationary level.
In accordance with the above definition, if a system does not change its
functional condition, it is in stationary condition. Consequently, the
steady-state process and stationary condition mean one the same thing, because
irrespective of whether the systems are in stationary condition or in dynamic
process, some kind of stationary or dynamic processes may take place in their
subsystems. For example, even just a mere reception by the “Х” receptor is a
dynamic process. Hence, there are no absolutely inert (inactive) objects and
any object of our World somewise operates in one way or another. It is assumed
that the object may be completely “inactive” at zero degrees of Kelvin scale
(absolute zero). Attempts to obtain absolutely inactive systems were undertaken
by freezing of bodies up to percentage of Kelvin degrees. It’s unlikely though,
that any attempts to freeze a body to absolute zero would be a success, because
the body would still move in space, cross some kind of magnetic, gravitational
or electric fields and interact with them. For this reason at present it is
probably impossible in principle to get absolutely inert and inactive body. The
integral organism represents mosaic of systems which are either in different
stationary conditions, or in dynamic processes. One could possibly make an
objection that there are no systems in stationary condition in the organism at
all, as far as some kind of dynamic processes continually occur in some of its
systems. During systole the pressure in the aorta increases and during diastole
it goes down, the heart functions continuously and blood continuously flows
through the vessels, etc. That is all very true, but evaluation of the system’s
functions is not made based on its current condition, but the cycles of its
activity. Since all processes in any systems are cyclic, including in the
organism, the criterion of stationarity is the invariance of integral condition
of the system from one cycle to another. Aorta reacts to external influence
(stroke/systolic discharge of the left ventricle) in such a way that in process
of increase of pressure its walls’ tension increases, while it falls in process
of pressure reduction. However, take, for example, the longer time period than
the one of the cardiocycle, the integrated condition of the aorta would not
vary from one cardiocycle to another and remain stationary.

Evaluation of
functional state of systems. Evaluation may be qualitative and quantitative.
The presence (absence) of any waves on the curve presents quality evaluation,
whereas their amplitude or frequency is their quantitative evaluation. For the
evaluation of functional condition of any systems comparison of the results of
measurements of function parameters to those that should be with the given
system is needed. In order to be able to judge about the presence (absence) of pathology,
it is not enough to measure just any parameter. For example, we have measured
someone’s blood pressure and received the value of 190/100 mm Hg. Is it a high
pressure or it is not? And what it should be like? To answer these questions it
is necessary to compare the obtained result to a standard scale, i.e. to the
due value. If the value obtained differs from the appropriate one, it speaks of
the presence of pathology, if it does not, then it means there is no pathology.
If blood pressure value of an order of 190/100 mm Hg is observed in quiescent
state it would speak of pathology, while at the peak maximum load this value
would be a norm. Hence, due values depend on the condition in which the given
system is. There exist standard scales for the estimation of due values. There
exist maximum and minimum due values, due values of quiescence state and peak
load values, as well as due curves of functions. Minimum and maximum due values
should not always correspond to those of quiescence state or peak load. For example, total
peripheral vascular resistance should be maximum in quiescence state and
minimum when loaded. Modern medicine makes extensive use of these kinds of due
values, but is almost unfamiliar with the concept of due curves. Due value is
what may be observed in most normal and healthy individuals with account taken
of affiliation of a subject to certain standard group of alike subjects. If all
have such-and-such value and normally exist in the given conditions, then in
order for such subject to be also able to exist normally in the same
conditions, he/she should be characterized by the same
value. For this purpose statistical standard scales are applied which are
derived by extensive detailed statistical research in specific groups of
subjects. These are so-called statistical mathematical models. They show what
parameters should be present in the given group of subjects. However, the use
of standard tables is a primitive way of evaluation of systems’ functions.
First, they provide due values characterizing only a group of healthy
individuals rather than the given concrete subject. Secondly, we already know
that systems at each moment of time are in one of their functional states and
it depends on external influences. For example, when the system is in
quiescence state it is at its lowest level of functional condition, while being
at peak load it is at its highest level. What do these tables suggest then?
They probably suggest due values for the systems of organism in quiescence
state or at their peak load condition. But, after all, the problems of patients
are not those associated with their status in quiescence state, and the level
of their daily normal (routine) load is not their maximum load. For normal
evaluation of the functional condition of the patient’s organism it is
necessary to use not tabular data of due values, but due curves of functions of
the body systems which nowadays are almost not applied. Coincidence or
non-coincidence of actual curves of the body systems’ functions with due curves
would be a criterion of their sufficiency or insufficiency. Hence, application
of standard tables is insufficient and does not meet the requirements of
adequate diagnostics. Application of due curves is more of informative
character (see below). Statistical mathematical models do not provide such
accuracy, howsoever exact we measure parameters. They show what values of
parameters should be in a certain group of subjects alike in terms of certain
properties, for example, males aged 20-30 years, of 165-175 cm height, smokers
or non-smokers, married or single, paleface, yellow- or black-skinned, etc.
Statistical models are much simpler than those determined, but less exact
though, since in relation to the given subject we can only know something with
certain degree (e.g. 80%) of probability. Statistical models apply when we do
not know all elements of the system and laws of their interaction. Then we hunt
for similar systems on the basis of significant features, we somewise measure
the results of action of all these systems operating in similar conditions
(clinical tests) and calculate mean value of the result of action. Having
assumed that the given subject closely approximates the others, because
otherwise he/she would not be similar to them, we say: “Once these (people)
have such-and-such parameters of the given system in such-and-such conditions
and they live without any problems, then he/she should have these same
parameters if he/she is in the same conditions”. However, a subject’s living
conditions do always vary. Change or failure to account even one significant
parameter can change considerably the results of statistical researches, and
this is a serious drawback of statistical mathematical models. Moreover,
statistical models often do not reveal the essence of pathological process at
all. The functional residual capacity (FRC) of lungs shows volume of lungs in
the end of normal exhalation and is a certain indicator of the number of
functional units of ventilation (FUV). Hence, the increase in FRC indicates the
increase in the number FUV? But in patients with pulmonary emphysema FRC is
considerably oversized. All right then, does this mean that the number of FUV
in such patients is increased? It is nonsense, as we know that due to emphysema
destruction of FUV occurs! And in patients with insufficiency of pumping
function of left ventricle reduction of FRC is observed. Does this mean that
the number of FUV is reduced in such patients? It is impossible to give
definite answer to these questions without the knowledge of the dynamics of
external respiration system function and pulmonary blood circulation. Hence,
the major drawback of statistical models consists in that sufficiently reliable
results of researches can be obtained only in the event that all significant
conditions defining the given group of subjects are strictly observed.
Alteration or addition of one or several significant conditions of research,
for example, stature/height, sex, weight, the colour of eyes, open window
during sleep, place of residence, etc., may alter very much the final result by
adding a new group of subjects. As a result, if we wish to know, e.g. vital capacity of lungs
in the inhabitants of New York we must conduct research among the inhabitants
of New York rather than the inhabitants of Moscow, Paris or Beijing, and these
data may not apply, for example, to the inhabitants of Rio de Janeiro.
Moreover, standards/norms may differ in the inhabitants of different
areas of New York depending on national/ethnic/ identity,
environmental pollution in these areas, social level and etc. Surely, one may
investigate all conceivable variety of groups of subjects and develop
specifications/standards, for example, for males aged from…  to…, smokers
or non-smokers of cigars (tobacco pipes, cigarettes or cigarettes with
cardboard holder) with high (low) concentration of nicotine, aboriginals
(emigrants), white, dark- or yellow-skinned, etc. It would require enormous
efforts and still would not be justified, since the world is continually changing
and one would have to do this work every time again. It’s all the more so
impossible to develop statistical specifications/standards for infinite number
of groups of subjects in the course of dynamic processes, for example, physical
activities and at different phases of pathological processes, etc., when the
number of values of each separate parameter is quite large. When the system’s
details are completely uncertain, although the variants of the system’s
reaction and their probabilistic weighting factors are known, statistical mathematical model of system
arises. Inaccuracy of these models is of fundamental character and is
stipulated by probabilistic character of functions. In process of studying of
the system details of its structure become apparent. As a result an empirical
model emerges in the form of a formula. The degree of accuracy of this model is
higher than that of statistical, but it is still of probabilistic character.
When all details of the system are known and the mechanism of its operation is
entirely exposed the deterministic mathematical model appears in the form of
the formula. Its accuracy is only stipulated by the accuracy of measurement
methods. Application of statistical mathematical models is justified at the
first stages of any cognition process when details of phenomenon in question
are unknown. At this stage of cognition a “black box” concept is introduced
when we know nothing about the structure of this “box”, but we do know its
reaction to certain influences. Types of its reactions are revealed by means of
statistical models and thereafter, with the help of logic, details of its
systems and their interaction are becoming exposed. When all that is revealed,
deterministic models come into play and the evaluation of the systems’ functions
is made not on the basis of tabular data, but on the basis of due curve of the
system function. Due curve of a system’s function is a due range of values of
function of the given concrete system in the given concrete subject, with its
load varying from minimum to maximum. Nowadays due curves are scarcely used,
instead extreme minimum and maximum due values are applied. For example, due
ventilation of lungs in quiescence state and in the state of peak load. For
this purpose maximum load is given to individuals in homotypic groups and
pulmonary ventilation in quiescence state and in the state of peak load is
measured. Following statistical processing due values of pulmonary ventilation
for the conditions of rest and peak load are obtained. The drawback of extreme
due values consists in that this method is of little use for the patients.
Not all patients are able to normally perform a stress test and discontinue it
long before due maximum value is achieved. The patient, for example, could have
shown due pulmonary ventilation, but he/she just stopped the load test too
early. How can the function be estimated then? It can be only done by means of
due curve. If the actual curve coincides with the due curve, the function is
normal at the site where coincidence occurred. If actual curve is lower than
the due one, it is a lagging curve. Inclined straight line consisting of
vertical pieces of line is the due curve. Vertical dotted straight line is the
boundary of transition of normal or lagging function into the inadequate line
(a plateau). The drawback of due curves is that in order to build them it is
necessary to use deterministic mathematical models of systems which number is
currently very low. They are built on the basis of knowledge of
cause-and-effect relationship between the system elements. These models are the
most complex, labor-consuming and for the time being are in many cases
impracticable. Therefore, these models are scarcely used in the sphere of
applied medicine and this is the reason for the absence of analytical
medicine. But they are the most accurate and show what parameters should be
present in the given concrete subject at any point of time. Only the use of due
curve functions allows for evaluating actual curves properly. The difference of
the deterministic mathematical models from statistical tables consists in that
in the first case due values for the concrete given subject (the individual’s
due values) are obtained, while in the second case due values for the group of
persons alike the given subject are developed. The possibility of building
deterministic models depends only on the extent of our knowledge of executive
elements of the system and laws of their interaction. Calculation of
probability of a thrown stone hitting a designated target can be drawn as an
example of statistical standard scale in the mechanic. After a series of
throws, having made certain statistical calculations it is possible to predict
that the next throw with such degree of probability will hit the mark. If deterministic
mathematical model (ballistics) is used for this purpose, then knowing the
stone weight, the force and the angle of throw, viscosity of air, speed and
direction of wind, etc., it is possible to calculate and predict precisely the
place where a stone will fall. “Give me a spot of support and I will up-end the
globe”, said Archimedes, having in view that he had deterministic mathematical
model of mechanics of movements. Any living organism is a very complex and
multi-component system. It’s impossible to account all parameters and their
interrelations, therefore statistical mathematical models cannot describe
adequately the condition of systems of organism. However, joint use of
statistical and deterministic models allows, with sufficient degree of accuracy,
to evaluate parameters of living system. In the lapse of time in process of
accumulation of knowledge statistical models are replaced by deterministic. Engineering/technology is much simpler than biology and medicine
because the objects of its knowledge are rather simple systems
(machinery/vehicles) constructed by a man. Therefore, its development and
process of replacement of statistical mathematical models for deterministic
ones has made great strides as compared with medicine. Nevertheless, on the front
line of any science including technical, where there is still no clarity about
many things and still a lot has to be learnt, statistics stands its ground as
it helps to reveal elements of systems and laws of their interaction. What do
we examine the subject and conduct estimation of functions of the systems of
his organism for? Do we do it in order to know to which extent he/she differs
from the homothetic subject? Probably, yes. But, perhaps, the main objective of
examination of a patient is to determine whether he/she can normally exist
without medical aid and if not, what kind of help might be provided.
Pathological process is a process of destruction of some SFU of the organism’s
systems in which one of the key roles is played by a vicious circle. However,
vicious circles start to actuate only if certain degree of load is present.
They do not emerge below this level and do not destroy SFU, i.e. no
pathological process emerges and no illness occurs below a certain threshold of
loading (mechanical, thermal, toxic, etc.). Hence, having defined a threshold
of the onset of the existence of vicious circle, we can learn the upper
“ceiling” of quality of life of the given patient. If his/her living conditions
(tempo of life) allow him/her not to exceed this “ceiling”, it suggests that
the given subject will not be in poor health under these conditions. If the
tempo of life requires more than the capacity of his/her organism may provide,
he/she will be in poor health. In order not to be ill he/she should stint himself/herself
in some actions. To limit oneself in actions means to reduce one’s living
standard, to deprive oneself of the possibility to undertake certain actions
which others can do or which he/she did earlier, but which are now inaccessible
to the given patient on the grounds of restricted resources of his/her organism
because of defects. If these restrictions have to do only with
pleasure/delight, such as, for example, playing football, this may be somehow
sustained. But if these restrictions have to do with conditions of life of the
patient it has to be somehow taken into account. For example, if his/her
apartment is located on the ground floor, then to provide for quite normal way
of life his/her maximum consumption of О2 should be, e.g., 1000 ml a minute. But what one should do if
he/she lives, e.g., on the third floor and in the house with no elevator, and
to be able to get to the third floor on foot he/she should be able to take up
2000 ml/min О2, while he/she is
able to uptake take up only 1000 ml/min О2,? The patient would then have a problem which can be solved only
by means of some kind of health care actions or by changing conditions of life.
In clinical practice we almost do not assess the patient’s functional condition
from the stand point of its correspondence to living conditions. Of course, it
is trivial and we guess it, but for the time being there are no objective
criteria and corresponding methodology for the evaluation of conformity of the
functional reserves of the patient’s organism with the conditions of his/her
life activity. Ergonomics is impossible without systemic analysis. Major
criterion of sufficiency of the organism’s functions in the given conditions of
life is the absence of the occurrence of vicious circles (see below) at the
given level of routine existential loads. If vicious circles arise in the given
conditions, it is necessary either to somehow strengthen the function of the
organism’s systems or the patient will have to change his/her living conditions
so that vicious circles do not work, or otherwise he/she will always be in poor
health with all the ensuing consequences. So, we need not only to know due
minimum or maximum values which we may obtain using statistical mathematical
models. We also need to know the patient’s everyday due values of the same
parameters specific for the given concrete patient so that his/her living
conditions do not cause the development of pathological processes and destroy
his/her organism. To this effect we need deterministic mathematical models.

Stabilization
systems and proportional systems. There exist a great number of types of
various systems. But stabilization systems and proportional systems are of
special importance for us. In respect of the first one the result of action
always remains the same (stable), it does not depend on the force of external
influence, but on the command. For example, рН of blood should be always equal
to 7.4, blood pressure to 120/80 mm Hg, etc., (homeostasis systems) regardless
of external influences. In respect of the second one the result of action
depends on the force of external influence under any specific law designated by
the command and is proportional to it. For example, the more physical work we
perform the more О2 we should
consume and excrete СО2. Stabilization
system uses two receptors, “Х” and “Y”. The “Х” receptor is used to start up
the system depending on the presence of external influence, while the “Y”
receptor is used for the measurement of the result of action. The command (the
task specifying the value of the result of action) is entered to the command
entry point of the stabilization system’s control block. Stabilization system
should fulfill this task, i.e. support (stabilize) the result of action at the
designated level irrespective of the force of external influence. Stability of
the result of action is ensured by that the “database” of the control block
contains the ratios/correlations of the number of active SFU and forces of
external influence and is sustained according to the NF logic: if the result of
action has increased, it is necessary to reduce it, and if it has decreased
it’s necessary to increase it. For this purpose the control block should
contain DPC and NF. Hence, the elementary control block (DPC) is not suitable
for stabilization systems. At least simple control block which contains NF as
well is necessary. In stabilization system the result of action of the system
up to vertical dotted straight line is stable (normal function, the curve goes
horizontally). Beyond the dotted straight line the function goes down
(increases), stabilization was disturbed (insufficiency of function). With
proportional system, its function increases (goes down) until vertical dotted
straight line proportionally to the external influence (normal function).
Beyond the dotted straight line the function does not vary (it entered the
saturation phase, transited to a plateau condition — insufficient function).
The measuring element in stabilization system continually measures the result
of action of the system and communicates it to the control block which compares
it to the preset result. In case of discrepancy of the result of action with
the task this block makes decision on those or other actions to be taken and
forces the executive elements to operate so that this divergence has
disappeared. External influence may vary within various ranges, but the result
of action should remain stable and be equal to the preset result. The system
spends its resources to do it. If the resources are exhausted, stabilization
system ceases to stabilize the result of action and starting from this point
the onset of its insufficiency occurs. One of stabilization examples is stellar
rotation speed in vacuum. If the radius of the star reduces, its rotational
speed will increase and centrifugal forces will amplify, thus scaling up its
radius and slowing down its rotational speed. If the radius of the star scales
up, the entire process will go in a reverse order. A figure skater regulates
the speed of rotational pirouettes he/she performs on the skating-rink based on
the same principle. Proportional system should also use both “Х” and “Y”
receptors. One of them measures the incoming influence, while another one
measures the result of action of the system. The command (the task as to what
the proportion between external influence and the result of action should be)
is input to the entry point of the control block. It is for this reason that
such systems are called proportional. External influence may change within the
varying range. But the control block should adjust the performance of the
executive elements so that the “prescribed” (preset by the directive)
proportion between external influence and the result of action is maintained.
Examples of proportional systems are, for example, amplifiers of electric
signals, mechanical levers, sea currents (the more the water in the ocean is
warmed up, the more intensive is the flow in the Gulf Stream), atmospheric
phenomena, etc. So, the examples of stabilization and proportional systems are
found in any medium, but not only in biological systems.

Evolution of
systems. Complex control block. For the most efficient achievement of the goal
the system always should carry out its action in the optimum way and produce
the result of action in the right place and time. The system’s control block
solves both problems: where and when it is necessary to actuate. In order to be
able to operate at the right place it should have a notion of space and the
corresponding sensors delivering information on the situation in the given space.
In turn, the time of delivery of the result of action with simple systems
includes two periods: the time spent for decision-making (from the moment of
onset of external influence till the moment of SFU activation) and the time
spent for the SFU actuation (from the moment of the beginning of SFU activation
till the moment the result of action is achieved). The time spent for the
decision-making depends on duration of cycles of the system’s performance which
issue was discussed above. The time spent for the SFU actuation depends on the
SFU properties such as, for example, the speed of biochemical reactions in live
cells or the speed of reduction of sarcomere in muscular cells which to a
considerable degree depends on the speed of power consumption by these SFU and
the speed of restoration of energy potential after these SFU have been
actuated. These speeds are basically the characteristics inherent in SFU, but
are also determined by service systems which serve these SFU. They may also be
controlled by control block. Metabolic, hormonal, prostaglandin and vegetative
neural regulation in living organism is intended just for this purpose, i.e. to
change to some extent the speeds of biochemical reactions in tissue cells and
conditions of delivery of energy resources by means of regulation of (service)
respiratory and blood circulation systems. But the notion of “at the right
time” means not only the time of actuation in response to the external
influence. In many cases there is a need for the actuation to start before
external influence is exerted. However, the system with simple control block
starts to perform only after the onset of external influence. It is a very
significant (catastrophic) drawback for living systems, because if the organism
is being influenced upon, it may mean that it is already being eaten. It would
be better if the system started to perform before the onset of this external
influence. If the external situation is threatening by the onset of dangerous
influence, the optimal actions of the system may protect it from such
influence. For this purpose it is necessary to know the condition of external
situation and to be able to see, estimate and know what actions need to be
undertaken in certain cases. In other words, it is necessary to exercise
control in order to forestall real result of action prior to external
influence. In order to perform these actions it should contain special elements
which can do it and which it does not have. Simple control block can exercise
control only on the basis of mismatch (divergence/discrepancy) of real result
of action with the preset one, because the system with simple control block
cannot “know” anything about external situation until the moment this situation
starts to influence upon the system. The knowledge of external situation is
inaccessible to simple control block. Therefore, simple control block always
starts to perform with delay. It may be sometimes too late to control. If the
system (the living organism) does not know the external situation, it may not
be able to make projection as to what the situation is and catch the victim or
forestall encounter with a predator. Thus, simple control block cannot make
decisions on the time and place of actuation. For this purpose control block
needs a special analyzer which can determine and analyze external situation and
depending on various external or internal conditions elaborate the decision on
its actions. This analyzer should have a notion of time and space in which
certain situation is deployed, as well as corresponding informants (sensors
with communication lines between them and this special analyzer) which provide
information on the external situation. The analyzer-informant has nothing of
this kind. When the hunter shoots at a flying duck, it shoots not directly at
the bird, but he shoots with anticipation as he knows that before the bullet
reaches a duck it (the duck) will move forward. The hunter, being a system
intended for shooting a duck, should see the entire situation at a distance,
estimate it correctly, make the projection as to whether it makes sense to
shoot, and he should act, i.e. shoot at a duck, only on the basis of such
analysis. He cannot wait until the duck touches him (until his “X” is actuated)
so that he then can shoot at it. In order to do so he should first single out a
duck as the object he needs from other unnecessary objects, then measure a
distance to a duck, even if it would be “by eye”. He does it by means of 
special (visual) analyzer which is neither “X” nor “Y” sensor, but is an
additional “C” sensor (additional special remote receptors with afferent
paths). Such receptors can be any receptors which are able of receiving
information at a distance (haemo-, termo-, photoreceptors, etc). The hunter’s visual
analyzer includes photosensitive rods and cone cells in the eye
(photoreceptors), optic nerves and various cerebral structures. He should be
able to distinguish all surrounding subjects, classify them and single out a
duck against the background of these subjects and locate a duck (situational
evaluation). In addition, by means of reciprocal innervation he should position
his body in such a way that the gun is directed precisely to the place in front
of the duck (forestalling/ anticipation) to achieve the goal, i.e. to hit the
duck. He does all this by means of his additional analyzer which is the
analyzer-classifier. Simple control block of systems with NF does not contain
such additional analyzer-classifier. That is why it is called “simple”. It has
only analyzer-informant which feels external influence by means of “X” sensor
only when this influence has already begun; it measures the result of action by
means of NF (“Y” sensor) only when this result is already evident and analyzes
the information received after the result of action is already produced,
because it takes time for the NF to activate. In addition, the
analyzer-informant contains only “database” in which the table of due values of
controllable parameters (data) which need to be compared to the data of
measurements of external influence and results of action “is written down” in
explicit or implicit form. It elaborates decisions on the basis of these
comparisons. Its algorithm of control is based only on the comparison of the
given measurements carried out by “X” and “Y” with the “database”. If the
mismatch is equal to “M” it is necessary to perform, for example, less action,
whereas if it is equal to “N”, then more action should be done. Simple control
block cannot change the decision as to the alteration of the level of
controllable parameter, time of actuation and the NF intensity, since it does
not have appropriate information. To perform these actions it should contain
special elements which can provide it with such information. What does it need
for this purpose? In order to make a decision the given block should “know” the
situation around the system which can cause certain external influence. For
this purpose it should first of all “see” it, i.e. have sensors which can
receive information at a distance and without direct contact (remote “C”
informant). In addition, it should contain a special analyzer-classifier which
can classify external environment and single out from it not all the objects
and situations, but those only which may affect the implementation of its
goals. Besides, it should have notions of space and time. The play of fish and
even dolphin shoals in the vicinity of floating combatant ship cannot affect its movement to
target destination. But the “game” of the enemy submarine in its vicinity may
substantially affect the fulfillment of its task. The combatant ship should be
able to “see” all its surroundings and, based on the external situation, single
out from all possible situations only those that may create such external
influences which can prevent it from the implementation of its objective. For
this purpose it should “know” possible situational scenarios which may affect
the achievement of the goal of the given system. To this effect it should have
“knowledge base” containing the description of all those situations which can
affect the implementation of the objective. If its “knowledge base” does not
have the description of certain objects or situations it cannot distinguish
(classify) an object or a situation and can not make correct decision. The
“knowledge base” should store information not on the parameters of external
influence which are stored in the “database”, but on the situations around
(beyond) the system which may lead to specific external influence. The “knowledge
base” may be introduced in the control block at the moment of its “birth” or
later together with the command, at that it is being introduced in the given
block by the systems external in relation to the given system. If its
“knowledge base” does not contain the description of the given situation, it
can not distinguish and classify it. The “knowledge base” contains the
description of various situations and the significance of these situations for
the system. Knowing the importance of real situation for the achievement of the
goal the system can make projection and take decision on its actions depending
on the projection made. In addition to the “knowledge base” it should have
“decision base”– a set of ready/stored/ decisions that are made by the control
block depending on the situation and the projection, (authorized decisions,
instructions) in which appropriate decisions are stored that need to be made in
respective situations. If it does not have ready decisions regarding external
situation it cannot perform its objective. Having identified a situation and
elaborated the decision, it gives a command to the analyzer-informant which
activates a stimulator in an appropriate way. Thus, the control block is being
complexificated on account of inclusion in its structure of the “C” informant
and the analyzer-classifier containing the “knowledge base” and the “base of
decisions”. That is why such control blocks are called “complex”. The more
complex the decision-making block is, the more precise decision may be chosen.
Consequently, complex control block includes both the analyzer-informant which
has “database
 and the analyzer-classifier which has the “knowledge base” and the “decision
base”. Not any living cell has analyzer — classifier. Animate/organic/ nature
is classified under two major groups: flora and fauna. Plants, as well as many
other living forms of animate nature, such as corals and bacteria, do not
possess remote sensors, although in some cases it may seem that plants,
nevertheless, do have such sensors. For example, sunflowers turn their heads
towards the sun as if phototaxis is inherent in them. But they actually turn
their heads not towards the light, but towards the side wherefrom their bodies
get more heated, and heat comes from the side wherefrom the light comes. Heat
is felt locally by a sunflower’s body. It does not have special infra-red
sensors. Photosynthesis process is not a process of phototaxis. Hence, plants
are systems with simple control block. In spite of the fact that there are plants
with a very complex structure that are even capable to feed on subjects of
fauna, their control block is still simple and reacts only to direct contact.
For example, a sundew feeds on insects; it can entice them, paste them to its
external stomach and even contract its valves. It’s a predator and in this
sense it is akin to a wolf, a shark or a jellyfish. It can do variety of
actions like an animal, but it can only do it after the insect alights on it. A
sundew cannot chase its victims because it does not see them (remote sensors
are not available). Whatever alights on it, even a small stone, it will do all
necessary actions and try to digest it because it does not have
analyzer-classifier. This is why a sundew is a plant, but not an animal.
Animate cells, including unicellular forms, even such as amoeba or infusoria
types, are systems with complex control blocks since they possess at least one of spatial
analyzers – chemotaxis. It is the presence of remote sensors that differs a
cell of an animal from any objects of flora, in which such sensors controls are
not present. Therefore the control block is a determinant of what kind of
nature the given living object belongs to. The jellyfish is not an alga, but an
animal because it has chemotaxis. Remote analyzer gives an idea about the space
in which it has to move. That is why plants stay put, while animals move in
space. Simple control block including only the analyzer-informant is a
determinant of the world of minerals and plants. We will see below where the
difference between the mineral and vegetative worlds/natures lies. Complex
control block including the analyzer-classifier is a fauna determinant anyway.
An amoeba is the same kind of hunter as a wolf, a shark or a man. It feeds on
infusorians. To catch an infusorian it should know where the latter is and
should be able to move. It cannot see the victim at a distance, but it can feel
it by its chemical sense organs and seek to catch it as it has chemotaxis,
possibly the first of the remote sensor mechanisms. But in addition to
chemotaxis the amoeba should also have a notion (even primitive) of space in
which it exists and in which it should move in a coordinated and task-oriented
manner to catch an infusorian. In addition, it should be able to single
out an infusorian from other objects which it can encounter on its way. Its
analyzer-classifier is much simpler than, for example, that of a wolf or a
shark because it does not have organs of sight and hearing and neural
structures at all, but it can classify external situation. It has complex
control block comprising the “C” informant, and that is why an amoeba is not a
plant, but an animal. Since control blocks may be of any degree of complexity,
reflexes may be of any degree of complexity, too, from elementary axon reflexes
to the reflexes including the cerebral cortex performance (instincts and
conditioned reflexes). The number of reflexes of living organism is enormous
and there exist specific reflexes for each system of the organism. Moreover,
the organism is not only a complex system in itself, but due to its complexity
it has a possibility to build additional, temporary/transient/ systems
necessary at the given point of time for some specific concrete occasion. For
example, lamentation system is a temporary system which the organism builds for
a short time interval. The lamentation system’s control block is the example of
complex control block. The purpose of lamentation is to show one’s suffering
and be pitied. This system includes, in the capacity of composite executive
elements, other systems (subsystems) that are located sufficiently far from
each other both in space and in terms of functions (lacrimal glands,
respiratory muscles, alveoli and pulmonary bronchial tubes, vocal chords, mimic
muscles, etc.). At first the external situation is identified and in case of
need lamentation reflex (complex reflex, an instinct) is actuated under the
certain program, which includes control of lifting up one’s voice up to a
certain timbre (control over the respiratory muscles and vocal chords), sobbing
(a series of intermittent  sighs), lacrimation /excretion of tears/, specific
facial expression, etc. All these remote elements are consolidated by the
complex control block in a uniform system, i.e. lamentation system, with very
concrete and specific purpose to show one’s sufferings to the other system. The
lamentation reflex can be realized at all levels of nervous system, starting
from the higher central cerebral structures, including vegetative neural
system, subcortex and up to cerebral cortex. But we are examining only child’s
weeping which is realized in neural structures not higher than subcortex level
(instinctive crying). After the purpose has been achieved (sufferings have been
explicitly demonstrated, and whether or not the child was pitied will be found
out later) the reflex is brought to a stop, this complex control block
disappears and the system disintegrates into the components which now continue
functioning as part of other systems of organism. Lamentation system disappears
(it is scattered). Whence the control block (at subcortex level) knows that it
is necessary to cry now, but it is not necessary to cry at any other moment?
For this purpose it identifies a situation (singles it out and classifies). The
analyzer-classifier is engaged in it. Its “knowledge base” is laid down in
subcortex from birth (the instincts). Simple control block cannot perform such
actions. All actions of the systems controlled by elementary and simple control
blocks would be automatic. Biological analogues of elementary control block are
the axon reflexes working under the “all-or-none” law; those of simple control
blocks are unconditional (innate, instinctive) reflexes when certain automatic,
but graduated reaction occurs in response to certain external influence. Simple
control block would be adapting the system’s actions better than the elementary
one because it takes account of not only external influence, but the result of
action of the system which has occurred in response to this external influence
as well. But it cannot identify a situation. Complex control block can perform
such actions. It reacts not to external influence, but to certain external
situation which can exert certain external influence. Biological analogues of complex
control block are complex reflexes or instincts. During pre-natal development
the “knowledge” of possible situations “is laid down” into the brain of a fetus
(the “knowledge base”). The volume of this knowledge is immense. A chicken can
run immediately after it hardly hatches from egg. A crocodile, a shark or a
snake become predators right after birth, i.e. they know and are able of doing
everything that is required for this purpose. It speaks of the fact that they
have sufficient inborn “knowledge base” and “base of decisions” for this
purpose. In such cases we say that animal has instincts. Thus, the system with
complex control block is the object which can react to certain external
situation in which this influence may be exerted. But it can react only to
fixed (finite) number of external situations which description is contained in
its “knowledge base” and it has a finite number of decisions on these
situations which description is contained in its “base of decisions”. In order
to identify external situation it has the “C” informant and the
analyzer-classifier.  In other respects it is similar to the system with simple
control block. It can also react to certain external influence and its reaction
is stipulated by type and number of its SFU. The result of action of the system
is also graduated. The number of gradations is defined by the number of
executive SFU in the system. It also has the analyzer-informant with the
“database”, DPC (the “X” informant) and NF (the “Y” informant), which control
the system through the stimulator (efferent paths). There are no analogues with
complex control block in inorganic /abiocoen, inanimate/ nature. Biological
analogues of systems with complex control block are all animals, from separate
cells to animals with highly developed nervous system including cerebrum and
remote sense organs, such as sight, hearing, sense of smell, but in which it is
impossible to develop reflexes to new situations, for example, in insects. The
analogues of the “C” informant are all “remote” receptors: eyesight (or its
photosensitive analogues in inferior animals), hearing and sense of smell. The
analogues of analyzer-classifier are, for example, visual, acoustical,
gustatory and olfactory analyzers located in the subcortex. Visual, acoustical,
gustatory and olfactory analyzers located in the cerebral cortex are anyway
referred to analyzers-correlators.

Self-training
control block. No brain is able to hold enormous “knowledge bases” on all possible
conditions of the entire world around. Therefore, one of the reasons why each
species of animals occupies corresponding biosphere niche is the necessity to
limit the volume of “knowledge base”. Antelope knows what the seal does not,
and vice versa. In each separate ecological niche the quantity of possible
situations is much less, than in all ecological niches all together. Therefore,
relatively small volume of necessary knowledge is required in separate
ecological niches. However, if one tries to somehow input /in the brain/ all
the information currently available on all the situations which have
already been occurring in the world, it would not help either, because the
world alters continually and many situations have never ever arose. The
“knowledge base” basically may not have information on what has not yet
happened in the world. Naturally, the “base of decisions” cannot
contain all the possible options of decisions either. “Genetic knowledge”
contains only what the ancestors of animals have experienced. They materially
cannot have knowledge of what is going to happen. When new situation arises,
the system cannot identify, classify it and make decision on it. Even if this
situation will occur repeatedly, if the system is unable of self-training it
will every time fail to correctly identify a situation because such situations
are not contained in its “knowledge base”. The ant runs along the fence, going
up and down, and cannot guess that it is possible to easily bypass the fence.
Millions years ago, when its genetically input “knowledge base” was formed the
fences were non-existent. If one tries to sink a thread on the web the spider
will leave this web and will weave a new one because it is not familiar with
such situation and it does not know and cannot learn that it is possible to
make a hole in a web so that the thread does not interfere. All this is due to
the fact that insects as a class of animals are not capable of learning
anything. They may be perfect builders amazing us with their sophisticated and
fine webs, nests and other creations of their work. But they can only build
based on their innate knowledge. They do have “knowledge base” (instincts), but
they do not have cerebral structures (elements of control block) capable of
supplementing their own “knowledge base” with new existential situations. They
do not have reflexes on new stimuli/exciters/. To be able to identify and
classify new situations the control block should be able to enter the
descriptions of these situations in its “knowledge base”. But at first it
should be able to identify that it is a completely new situation, for example,
by comparing it to what already exists in its “knowledge base”. Then it should
identify the importance (the value worth) of this particular situation for the
achievement of its goal. If there is no any correlation between the new
situation and the fulfillment of the goal of the system, there is no sense in
remembering this situation, otherwise the brain “will be crammed with trash”.
By singling out and classifying external situations (identifying them) and
finding interrelation (correlation) between these situations, by decisions made
and the achievement of the goal of the system the control block learns to
develop appropriate decisions. Thus, the self-training decision-making block
continually supplements its “knowledge base” and “base of decisions”. But under
the conservation law nothing occurs by itself. In order for the control block
to be able to perform the above actions it should have appropriate elements.
The major element of the kind is the analyzer-correlator. It is the basis
whereon reflex on new stimulus/exciter or a new situation may emerge. Its task
is to detect a new situation, identify that it is new, determine the degree of
correlation between this situation and its own goal. If there is no correlation
between this new situation and implementation of the goal by the system, there
is no sense in remembering and loading its limited “database” memory. If the
degree of correlation is high it is necessary to enter this situation in the
“knowledge base” and develop a decision on the choice of own actions for the
achievement of its own goal and thereafter to define whether there is
correlation between the decision made and the achievement of the goal. If there
is no correlation between the decision made and the fulfillment of the goal by
the system it is necessary to arrive at other solution and again determine the
correlation between the decision made and the achievement of the goal. And it
should be repeated in that way until sufficiently high correlation between the
decision made and the achievement of goal is obtained. Only afterwards the
correct computed decision should be entered into the “base of decisions”. This
is the essence of self-training. Only the analyzer-correlator enables
self-training process. As a matter of fact, the system’s self-training means
the emergence of reflexes to new stimuli/exciters or situations. Consequently,
these are only possible when the control block contains analyzer-correlator.
Biological analogue of the analyzer-correlator is the cerebral cortex. The
presence of cortex determines the possibility of emergence of reflexes to new
situations. Cerebral cortex is only present in animals which represent
sufficiently high level of development. Non-biological analogues of systems
with such self-training control block are unknown to us. Computer self-training
systems are built by man and the process of self-training at the end of the day
always involves human cerebral cortex. There exist various so-called
“intellectual” systems, but full-fledged intelligence is only inherent in human
being. Let us specify that there are no self-training systems, but there are
their self-training control blocks, because executive elements cannot be
trained in anything. There may be systems with simple executive elements, but
with control blocks of varying complexity. In order for the control block to be
a self-training structure it should contain three types of analyzers: the
analyzer-informant with “database”; the analyzer-classifier with the “knowledge
base” and “base of decisions” (which is able of classifying external situation
on the basis of the information from the “C” informant); the
analyzer-correlator (able of identifying the interrelation – correlation
between various external situations and the results of actions of the
given system and transferring the knowledge obtained and decisions to the
analyzer-classifier to enter them in the “knowledge base” and the “base of
decisions”). Thus, the system with self-training control block is an object
which can learn to distinguish new external influences and situations in which
such influence may be exerted. For this purpose it has the analyzer-correlator.
In other respects it is similar to the systems with complex control
block. It can respond to specific external influence and external situation and
its reaction would be stipulated by type and number of its SFU. The result of
action of the system is also graduated. The number of gradations is determined
by the number of executive SFU in the system. It also has analyzer-qualifier
with “knowledge base” and “base of decisions” and the analyzer-informant with “database”,
DPC (the “X” informant) and NF (the “Y” informant), which operate the system
through the stimulator (efferent paths). In inorganic/inanimate nature there
are no analogues of systems with self-training control blocks. Biological
analogues of systems with complex control block are all animals with
sufficiently developed nervous system in which it is possible to develop
reflexes to new situations (should not be confused with conditioned reflexes).
The analogue of analyzer-correlator is only the cerebral cortex.

Signaling systems.
The appearance in the control block of the analyzer-correlator enabled the
possibility to enhance its personal experience by self-training and continually
update its “knowledge base” and “base of decisions”. But it cannot transfer its
experience to other systems. Personal experience is limited howsoever an
individual would try to expand it. In any case collective experience is much
broader than that of an individual. In order for one individual to be able to
transfer his/her experience to other individual separate device is needed
enabling “downloading” the information from one “knowledge base” to another.
For example, the antelope knows that the cheetah is very dangerous because it
feeds on antelopes and wishes to transfer this knowledge to its calf. How can
it be done? For example, the antelope can simulate a situation playing a
performance in which all characters are real objects, i.e. it should expose
itself to cheetah so that the calf could see it to gain its own experience by
the example of its mum. The calf will see the situation and new reflex to new
situation will be developed and the calf will be on its guard against the
cheetahs. Of course, it is an absurd way as it does not solve the problem of
survival. Anyway, only one out of the two antelopes
will survive. So, what can be done in principle? How one self-training system can transfer
its individual experience to other self-training system? It is necessary to
simulate a situation by making a show in which all characters are abstract
objects and replace real objects with others, which are conferred conventional
connection/link between them and the real objects (abstracting of objects).
Such abstract objects are prearranged signals. The systems “agree” (stipulate a
condition) that if such-and-such signal occurs, it will speak of something
agreed upon. It is the development of conditioned reflex that represents
replacement of real influence for abstract influence. It is a so-called first
signaling system which is based on conditioned reflexes. The appearance of
cheetah causes producing a panic sound by an antelope. Consequently such sound
is associated with the appearance of cheetah and it becomes an abstract
substitute of cheetah itself, i.e. prearranged signal. Any motional signal may
be an abstract substitute of danger, i.e. raising or dropping of tail, special
jumps, producing special sounds, mimicry, etc. These motional signals affect
the systems in the herd and based on this signal they may know about a danger
nearby. In other words, there was a replacement of real external influence by
some abstract thing associated with this object. Abstracting of real action by
its symbol (vocal, motional, etc) took place. For such abstracting the control
block needs to have an additional device – the analyzer-abstractor which should
contain the “base of abstraction” (“base of prearranged signals”). The “base of
abstraction” contains a set of descriptions of certain signals which are
perceived as conditional situations and correspond to other certain situations.
A prearranged signal is the appearance of some object or movement (situational
signal) which usually does not appear in common routine situation. The
occurrence of prearranged signal does not in itself affect in any way the
achievement of the goals by the systems. For example, raising and fluffing out
a tail does not influence in any way neither food intake, nor running, etc. But
the occurrence of a signal is connected with the occurrence of such situation
which can affect the achievement of goals by the systems. Given the ability to
abstract from concrete situations, then not even seeing a cheetah, but having
seen the lifted tails, may be conducive to guessing that a cheetah is nearby.
Abstracting of real external influence by vocal or motional symbol is performed
by the first signaling system. It supplements the analyzer-correlator and
operates similarly to it, i.e. is self-training. Unlike the “knowledge base”
the “base of abstraction” of a newly born system is empty. It is being filled
out during the system’s lifetime on account of possibility of self-training,
and the newly obtained knowledge is then downloaded in the “knowledge base”.
Sometimes behavior of animals seems to be indicative of their possibility to
transfer the information from one to another even before the occurrence of the
respective situation. For example, some lions go to an ambush, others start
driving the antelopes, so they kind of foresee the situation. But they only
know about ambush possibilities based on their own experience. They do not have
other means of transfer of such information to their younger generation except
for demonstrating this situation to them. A new way for the development of
systems (or rather their control blocks) is being opened at this point, the way
of socialization – associations of animals in groups for the enhancement of
their own experience because prearranged signals are only intended for an
information transfer from one system (subject) to another. There are probably
several levels of such analyzer-abstractor and the degree of abstraction which
may be attained by this or other subject depends on the number of these levels.
One may abstract external influences, external situations, real objects and
even process of self-training proper. But in any case one should be able to
abstract and understand abstract symbols. This is what analyzer-abstractor
does. Abstracting of real external influence, object or situation by means of
situational prearranged signal (a pose, a sound, a movement, some kind of
action) may be performed by the first signaling system. Abstracting of real
external influence, an object or a situation by means of sign /emblematic/
prearranged signal (symbol) can only be performed by second signaling system.
Control block having the second signaling system is an intellectual control block.
Intelligence depends on the presence and the degree of development (number of
levels) of analyzer-abstractor. In animals the second signaling system is very
poorly developed or undeveloped at all. If the horse dashes aside from a whip,
it is not even the first signaling system that works in this case, but rather a
reflex on the new situation which the horse has learnt when it first
encountered a whip. If the horse is coarsely shouted at even without showing a
whip to it, it will draw necessary conclusions. That’s the point at which the
first signaling system takes effect. But if the horse is shown an inscription
which reads that it now will be beaten, the animal will not react to in any way
because it cannot and will never be able to read since it does not have second
signaling system. There are animals which apparently are capable of speaking
and understanding words, written symbols and even making elementary arithmetic
operations. But the second signaling system is very poorly developed in them
and is literally “in embryo” condition. When the trainer demonstrates the dog’s
counting up to five, he bluffs in a way as in fact the dog picks up some
motional signals from him, i.e. the second rather than the first signaling
system takes effect. The second signaling system is developed to the utmost
extent only in human beings. In human beings it is developed to the extent that
it makes it possible to transfer all necessary information on our further
actions to us in the nearest or even quite a distant future only by means of
sign symbols. We can read a book containing just mere squiggles only, however
such a full-blown and colorful pictures are open before us that we forget about
everything on earth. Your dog for sure is surprised that its master looks for
hours at a strange subject (the book) and does not move, run or make any sounds.
And even if you try to explain to it that it is a book the dog will not
understand it anyway, because it has not yet “matured”, it does not have second
signaling system. Thus, the system with self-training control block containing
the first signaling system is an object which can abstract external influences
and situations by means of abstract situational prearranged signal. For this
purpose it has an analyzer-abstractor of the first order. But it can inform of
the presence of such action or situation only at the moment of their
occurrence. It may transfer its experience to other systems only with the help
of the situational prearranged signal which possibilities are limited.
Such block has the “knowledge base” and “base of abstraction” which it accumulates
in its brain within the lifespan. In the communities of systems with first
signaling system accumulation of personal knowledge is possible, whereas
accumulation of social knowledge is impossible because this knowledge is
accumulated only in the control block (cerebrum) which possibilities are
limited. The system which has self-training control block containing the second
signaling system is an object which can abstract external influences and
situations by means of abstract sign /symbolic/ prearranged signal. For this
purpose it has an analyzer-abstractor of Z-order. It can transfer its
experience to other systems by transfer of information to them in the form of
conventional signs. Such blocks accumulate “knowledge base” outside its
cerebrum in the form of script thanks to the developed “base of abstraction”.
It gives an opportunity to absolve from dependence of accumulation of knowledge
on the lifespan of an individual subject. In communities of systems with the
second signaling system accumulation of social knowledge is possible and it
strengthens the accumulation of individual knowledge. In other respects the
control block with signaling systems is similar to the self-training control
block examined above. It can react to definite external influence and learn to
react to new external influence and an external situation, and its reaction is
determined by type and number of its SFU. The result of action of the system is
also graduated. The number of gradations is determined by the number of
executive SFU in the system. It also has the analyzer-correlator, the
analyzer-classifier with “knowledge base” and “base of decisions”, the
analyzer-informant with the “database”, DPC (with the “Х” informant) and NF
(the “Y” informant) which through a stimulator (efferent paths) operate the
system. In an inanimate/inorganic nature there are no analogues of systems with
control block having signaling systems. Biological analogues of systems with
control block containing the first signaling system are all animals with sufficiently
developed nervous system in which conditioned reflexes may be developed. As a
rule such animals do already have social relations (flocks, herds and other
social groups), as signals are transferred from one animal to another.
Biological analogue of systems with control block containing the second
signaling system is only the human being.

Self-organizing
systems. Bogdanov has shown that there exist two modes of
formation of systems. According to the first one the system arises at least
from two objects of any nature by means of the third entity – connections
(synthesis, generation). According to the second one the system is formed at
the expense of disintegration (destruction, retrogression/degeneration) of the
more complex system that previously existed [6]. Hence, the system may be
constructed (arranged) from new elements or restructured (reorganized) at the
expense of inclusion of additional elements in its structure or by exclusion
from its structure of unnecessary elements. Apparently, there is also a third
mode of reorganization of systems – replacement of old or worn out parts for
the new ones (structural regeneration), and the fourth mode – changing of
connections/bonds between internal elements of the system (functional
regeneration). Generation (the first mode of reorganization) is a process of
positive entropy (from simple to complex, complexification of systems). New
system is formed for the account of expanding the structure of its elements.
This process occurs for the account of emergence of additional connections
between the elements and consequently requires energy and inflow of substances
(new elements). The degeneration (the second mode of reorganization) is a
process of negative entropy (from complex to simple, simplification of systems).
New system is formed for the account of reduction of compositional structure of
its elements. This process releases energy and elements from the structure.
Both modes are used for the creation of new systems with the new goals. In the
first case complexification of systems takes place, while in the second one
their simplification or destruction occurs. Structural regeneration (the third
mode of reorganization) is used for the conservation and restoration of the
systems’ structure. It is used in the form of metabolism, but at that, the
system and its goals remain unchanged. Energy and inflow of substances for the
SFU restoration is required for this process. Functional regeneration (the
fourth mode of reorganization) is used for the operation of systems as such.
The principle of the systems’ functioning resembles generation and degeneration
processes. In process of accretion of functions the system includes the next
in turn SFU ostensibly building a new, more powerful system with larger number
of elements (generation). During the reduction of capacity of functions the
system deactivates the next in turn SFU as if it means to build a new system with fewer
number of elements (degeneration). But these are all reversible changes of the
system arising in response to the external influence which are effected for the
account of the change of the condition of its elements and the use of DPC, NF
and effectors. At that, the system’s structure kind of alters depending on its
goal. New active and passive (reserve) SFU appear in it. This process requires
energy and flow of substances for energy recovery, but not necessarily requires
a flow of substances for the restoration of SFU. How does the organization
(structuring) of system occur? Who makes decision on the organization or
reorganization of systems? Who builds control block of the new or reorganized
system? Who gives the command, the task for the system? Why is the NF loop
built for meeting the given specific condition? Before we try to answer these
questions, we will note the following. First, there is a need in the presence
of someone or something “interested” in the new quality of the result of action
who (or which) will determine this condition (set the goal) and construct the
control block. Someone or something “interested” may be the case coupled with natural selection, whereby by way of
extensive arbitrary search corresponding combinations of elements and their
interactions may emerge that are the most  sustained/lasting in the given
conditions of environment. Thus, the environment/medium sets condition and the
incident builds the systems under these conditions. At this point we do not
consider the conditions in which generation or degeneration occurs and which
are associated with redundancy or lack of energy (with positive or negative
entropy). We only consider the need and expediency of creation of systems. The
more complicated the system is, the more search options should be available and
the more time it takes (the law of large numbers). We will note, however, that
the goal is set to any systems from the outside, whether it is an incident, a
person, natural selection or something else. But we cannot ignore the
following very interesting consequence.  Firstly, the survival rate is the
main and general goal of any living organism. And as far as the goal is set
from the outside, the survival rate is also something set to us from the
outside and is not something that stems from our internal inspirations. In
other words, the aim to survive is our internal incentive, but someone or
something from the outside has once imbedded it in us. And prior to such
imbedding it was not “ours”. Secondly, in order to ensure the possibility of
building systems with any kind of control block, even the elementary one, the
presence of such elements is necessary which quality of results of
actions could in principle provide such a possibility. It follows from the
conservation law and the law of cause-and-effect limitations that nothing
occurs by itself. These elements should have entry points of external influence
(necessarily), command entry points (not necessarily for uncontrollable SFU)
and exit points of the result of action (necessarily). Exits and entries should
have possibility to interact between themselves. This possibility is realized
by means of combination of homo-reactivity and hetero-reactivity of elements.
Physical homo-reactivity is the ability of an element to produce the same kind
of result of action as is the kind of external influence (pressure →
pressure, electricity → electricity, etc.). At the same time,
characteristics of physical parameters do not vary (10g →10g, 5mV →
5mV, etc.). Homo-reactive elements are transmitters of actions. Physical
hetero-reactivity is the ability of an element, in response to external influence
of one physical nature, to yield the result of action of other physical nature
(pressure → electric pulse frequency, electric current → axis shaft
rotation, etc.). Hetero-reactive elements are converters of actions. The
elements with physical hetero-reactivity are, for example, all receptors of
living organism (which transform the signals of measurable parameters into
nerve pulse trains), sensors of measuring devices, levers, shafts, planes, etc.
In other words such elements may be any material things of the world around us
that satisfy hetero-reactivity condition. Chemical reactions also fall under
the subcategory of physical reactions as chemical reactions represent transfer
of electrons from one group of atoms to others. Chemistry is a special section
of physics. Logic hetero-reactivity is the ability of an element, in response
to external influence of one type physical nature, to yield the result of
action of the same physical nature (pressure → pressure, electric
current → electric current, etc.), but with other characteristics (10g →
100g, 5mA → 0.5mA, 1Hz → 10Hz, 5 impulses → 15 impulses,
etc.). Amplifiers, code converters, logic components of electronics are the
examples of elements with logic hetero-reactivity. Neurons do not possess
physical hetero-reactivity as they can perceive only potentials of action and
generate the potentials. But they have logic hetero-reactivity and they can
transform frequency and pulse count. They do not transform a physical parameter
as such, but its characteristics. Any system consists of executive and
operating elements. At the same time any control block of any system itself
consists of some kind of parts (elements), so it also falls under the
definition of systems. In other words, control block and its parts are specific
systems (subsystems) themselves with their goals, and they have their own
executive elements and local control blocks operating these executive elements.
Compulsory condition for part of them is their ability to hetero-reactivity of
one or other sort. The effect of their control action consists only in their
relative positioning. Command is entered into the local control block
(condition of the task, the goal/objective) and the latter continually watches
that the result of action
always satisfies the command. At that, the command can be set from
the outside by other system external in relation to the given one, or the
self-training block may “decide” independently to change the parameters (but
not the goal) set by the command. So, the elements of control may be the same
as the executive elements. The difference is only in relative positioning.
Director of an enterprise is just the same kind of individual as any ordinary
engineer. All elements of the system, both executive and controlling, are
structured according to a certain scheme specific for each concrete case (for
each specific goal), but all of them must have the “exit” point/outlet/, whence
the result of action of the given element is produced, and two “entry points” –
for external influence and for entry of the command. If the exit points of any
elements are connected to the entry points for external influences of other
elements, such elements are executive. In this case executive elements are
converters of one kind of results of action into the other, because the results
of actions of donor systems represent external influence for the recipient
systems (executive elements). They (external influences) ostensibly enter the
system and exit it being already transformed into the form of new results of
action. If exit points of elements are connected to command entry
points of other elements, such elements are controlling and represent a part of control block.
In such cases the result of action of some systems represents the command for the
executive elements, the instruction on how to transform the results of action
of donor systems into the results of action of recipient systems. But
the law of homogeneity of actions and homogeneous interactivity
(homo-reactivity) of the exit-entry connection is invariably observed. If, for
example, the result of action of the donor element is pressure, the entry point
of external influence (for the command) of the recipient element should be able
to react to pressure, or otherwise the interaction between the elements would
be impossible.

Thirdly, in order
to “hack” into the control of other systems the given system should have
physical or any other possibility to connect its own exit point of result of
action or own stimulator to the entry point of the command of any other system.
In this case this other system becomes the subsystem subordinate to the given
control block, i.e. the systems should have physical possibility to combine
exits of their stimulators and/or results of action with the command entry
points of other systems. For this purpose they should be mobile. There are
types of devices for which the requirement of physical mobility is not
necessary, but, nevertheless, information from one system may flow into control
blocks of other devices. These are the so-called relay networks, for example,
computer operating networks, cerebral cortex, etc., in which virtual mobility
is possible, i.e. the possibility of switching of information flows. In such
networks the information can be “pumped over”/downloaded/ in those directions
in which it is required. For example, human feet are intended for walking,
while hands – for handiwork. How is predestination effected? In principle hands
and feet are structured identically, with the same autopodium, the same fingers
(the same executive elements). Nevertheless, it is practically impossible, for
example, to brush the hair with feet. Why? Because there are certain
stereotypes of movements in the cerebral cortex, without which hands are not
hands and feet are not feet. But we know cases when a person who lost both
hands and nevertheless, he perfectly coped with many household affairs with the
help of feet and took part in a circus show. How was it possible? Some kind of
remodeling/change/ occurred in his brain and he changed his stereotypes.
Cerebral structures which were previously controlling hands have “downloaded”
their “knowledge bases” into those cerebral structures which operate the feet.
Cerebral cortex was only able to do it thanks to the presence of its property
of relay circuits, i.e. the possibility to turn information flows to the
directions required for the given purpose. Organization and reorganization of
systems may be incidental and target-oriented. In incidental organization or
reorganization there is no special control block which has the goal and
decision on building of a new system, even more so in such a detail that, for
example, such-and-such exit point of a stimulator needs to be connected to
such-and such command entry point. Fortuity is determined by probability.
That’s where the law of large numbers works, which reads: “If theoretically
something may happen, it will surely happen, provided a very large number of
occurrences”. The more the number of cases is, the higher is the probability of
appearance of any systems, successful and unsuccessful, because fortuity
creates the systems, the probability sets their configuration and the external
medium makes natural selection. Therefore evolution lasts very long, sorting
out multitude of occurrences (development options). It is for this reason that
various combinations of connections of parts of systems occur. Therefore, both
nonviable monsters and the systems most adaptable to the given conditions may
be formed. Those weak are annihilated, while those strong transfer their
“knowledge bases” and “bases of decisions” to their posterior generations in
the form of genetically embedded properties and instincts. It is not so
important in the organization of systems which control block (simple or
complex) the coalescing (organizing) systems have. What is only important is
that the exit points of stimulators or results of action of one kind of systems
connect to the command entry points of the others. Control blocks of coalescing
systems may be of any kind, from elementary to self-training. At that, even if
the self-training block (i.e. sufficiently developed) “would not want” to
connect its command entry point to the exit point of stimulator or the result
of action of other system, even the simplest one, it still won’t be able of
doing anything if it fails to safeguard its command entry point. The virus “does not ask the
permission” of a cell when it “downloads” its genetic information in the cell’s
DNA. The decision on reorganization of the system (purpose) may come from the
outside, from the operating system sited higher on a hierarchy scale. It is
passive purposefulness, since the initiative comes from the outside. The
external system “tells” the given system:  “As soon as you see such-and-such
system, affix it immediately to yourself”. The system can undertake active
actions for such an organization, but it is not yet self-organizing as such,
but an imposed (forced, prescriptive) organization. But if it “occurs” to the
system that “it would be quite good if that green thing that stuck to me is
included  as a component in my own structure, since the experience shows it can
deliver glucose for me from СО2 and light”,
it would then mean self-organizing. Thus, perhaps, once upon a time chlorophyll was included in the
structure of seaweed. Most likely, it did not happen purposefully, but rather
accidentally (accidental organization), as we cannot be sure that those ancient
seaweeds had a self-training control block, and the independent “thought” may
only occur in the system with such control block. This example is only drawn to
illustrate what we call a self-organizing system. But the idea to take a stick
in one’s hands to extend the hand and get the fruit hanging high on the tree is
only a prerogative of the higher animals and the human being, which is a true
example of self-organization. Only the systems with self-training control block
can evaluate the external situation, properly assess the significance of all
the novelty surrounding the given system and draw conclusion on the expediency
of reorganization. It is an active purposefulness anyway, since the initiative
originated inside the given system and it “decided” on its own and no one
“imposed” it on the system. External medium dictates conditions of existence of
the systems and it can “force” the system to make the decision on
reorganization. But the decision on the time and character of reorganization is
taken by the system itself on the basis of its own experience and
possibilities. Only systems with self-training control block can initiate active
purposefulness, can be deliberately the self-organizing systems. Thus, a man
has invented work tools, having thus strengthened the possibilities of its
body. At that, it should be noted that the decision on self-organizing does not indicate
at the freedom of choice of the goal of the system, but a freedom of choice of
its actions for the achievement of the goal set from the outside. In order to
implement its goal in a better way, for example, to survive in such-and-such conditions,
the system makes the decision on reorganization so that to better adapt to
external conditions and enhance its survival chances.

Metabolism and
types of self-organization. All the above was only concerning the creation of
new systems and their development. But any systems are continually exposed to
various external influences which sooner or later destroy them. Our world is in
continuous and uninterrupted movement. The speeds of this movement may vary:
somewhere events occur once in millions years, while somewhere else millions
times a second. But most likely it is impossible to find a single place in
the Universe where no movement of any kind (thermal, electric, gravitational, etc.)
occurs. Hence, the process of negative entropy is always present. Any systems
are always being reorganized at the expense of disintegration of more complex
systems that have been existing earlier, which grow old (degenerate).
Destruction is a process of loss by systems of their SFU. Systems of mineral
nature (crystals, any other amorphous, but inanimate bodies, planetary, stellar
and galactic systems) continuously undergo various external influences and are
scattered with varying speed due to the loss of their SFU. Mineral nature grows
old and changes, because the entropy law — from more complex to more simple —
works. In the mineral nature complexification (generation) can only occur in
case of excess of internal energy or its continuous inflow from the outside.
Thus, in a thermonuclear pile of ordinary stars nuclei of complex atoms
including atoms of iron were formed. But the energy of such piles is not yet
sufficient for the formation of heavier nuclei. All other heavier nuclei were
formed as a result of explosions of supernovae and the release of super-power
energy. Therefore, figuratively speaking, our bodies are built of stellar
ashes. But as soon as energy of thermonuclear synthesis comes to an end, the
star starts to die out, passing through certain phases. We do not know yet all
phases of the development and dying of stars, but if failing “to undertake some
sort of measures” after a very long period of time not only stars, but atoms as
well, including their components (protons, neutrons and electrons) will be
shivered. Thus, the free neutron “unprotected” by intranuclear system breaks up
into a proton, electron and neutrino within 12 minutes. Hence, the atomic and
intranuclear system is the system of stabilization of a neutron protecting atom
and its elements from disintegration. But even such stable and seemingly eternal
stellar formations such as “black holes” “evaporate” in the course of time,
expending their mass for gravitational waves. In the absence of energy inflow
the system would just flake/scatter and lose its SFU. It follows explicitly
from thermodynamics laws. The so-called “thermal entropic death” is coming
forth. Destruction of systems under the influence of external environment is
the forced entropic reorganization (degeneration), rather than
self-organization. The objects of mineral nature possess only passive
destruction protection facilities and one of the major means of protection is
integration of elements in a system (generation). Consequently, the emergence
of systems and their evolution in mineral nature represents means of protection
of these elements from destruction. One can not conquer alone. The system is
always stronger than singletons. Formation of connections/bonds between the
elements and the emergence of generation type systems in mineral nature is the
passive way of protection of elements against the destructive effect of
negative entropy. The weakest bodies are ionic and gas clouds, while the
strongest ones are crystals. However, all of them cannot resist external influences
indefinitely long, because they react only after their occurrence, and they
cannot resist entropy. Consequently, the presence of passive means for the
protection against destruction is insufficient. Whatever solid and large the
crystals might be, they would be scattered /flaked in the lapse of time either.
In order to keep the system from destruction it is necessary to replenish
destroyed parts continually. Systems of vegetative, animal and human nature
also undergo various external influences and also are scattered (worn out) with
varying speed. And it happens for the same reason and the same law of negative
entropy, i.e. from more complex to more simple (degeneration) works. But these
systems differ from the systems of mineral nature that actively try to resist
destruction by continual renewal of their SFU structures. This renewal occurs
at the expense of continuous building of new SFU in substitution of the
destroyed ones. This process of renewal of destroyed SFU also represents
structural regeneration as such – a purposeful metabolism. Therefore,
metabolism of living organisms is an active way of protection of systems from
destructive effect of negative entropy (from degeneration). In mineral nature
metabolism may take place as well, but it essentially differs from metabolism
of any living systems. Crystals grow from the oversaturated saline solution,
the atmosphere exchanges water and gases with the seas, automobile and other
internal combustion engines consume fuel and oxygen and discharge carbon
dioxide. But if a crystal is taken out from saline solution, it will just
collapse and will not undertake any measures on conservation of its structure.
When a camshaft in the automobile engine is worn out the car does nothing to
replace it. Instead, it is done by man. Any actions of the system directed
towards the replacement of destroyed and lost SFU represent self-organization
anyway, which in the living nature is called structural self-reorganization or
metabolism. In mineral nature structural self-reorganization is nonexistent.
Any living system, regardless of its complexity, would undertake certain
actions for the conservation of its structure. At that, there are always two
flows of substances in living systems – flow of energy and
“structural”/constructive/ flow. The energy flow is intended to provide energy
for any actions of systems, including structural self-reorganization, as it is
necessary every time to build new connections/bonds which require energy
(regeneration). “Structural” flow of substances is only used for structural
regeneration, i.e. replacement of worn out SFU for the new ones (in this case
we do not examine the system’s growth, i.e. generation). When we talk about
self-reorganization we mean “structural” flow of substances, although such flow is impossible
without energy. Myocardium in humans completely renews (regenerates) its
molecular structure approximately within a month. It means that its
myocardiocytes, or rather their elements (myofibrillas, sarcomeres, organelles,
membranes, etc.) are continually being worn out and collapse, but are
continually built again at the same speed. Outwardly we can see one and the
same myocardial cell, but eventually its molecular composition is being
completely renewed. Throughout the human lifespan the type of organization
varies. In the early years of life organization occurs at the expense of
inclusion of new additional elements in the structure (generation, the organism
grows and develops), whereas starting from the mid-life period degeneration
predominantly takes place, i.e. destruction process (disintegration of the
previously existing more complex system). But these are now the particulars
associated with imperfection of real living systems. For any system the overall
objective is to exist in this World, and for this purpose it should counteract
destructive influences, for which purpose it should have specific SFU which
facilitate its operation and which continuously collapse and need to be
continuously renewed, i.e. build anew, since regeneration is the essence of
self-reorganization by means of metabolism. Hence, the living nature differs
from inanimate first of all in that metabolism is intended for the conservation
of its structure (structural regeneration). In principle, any reaction of any
systems is directed towards conservation of the systems. Control block of
systems takes care of it using all its possibilities for this purpose: DPC, NF
and analyzers for the SFU operation. But in mineral nature there are only
passive ways of protection. And when the system of mineral nature loses its
SFU, it does not undertake any active measure to replace them. It would try to
resist the external influence, but no more than that. In vegetative and animal
nature and humans the systems cannot passively resist the destructive effect of
environment either, they also collapse, but anyway they have active means of
restoration of the destroyed parts, they have the purposeful metabolism aimed
at replacement of the lost SFU (structural regeneration). It uses two
mechanisms of the so-called genetic regeneration: reproduction of systems (the
parent will die, but children will remain) and reproduction of elements of
systems (regeneration of elements of cells and tissue cells themselves). These
ways of conservation of systems are sufficiently effective. It is known how
complex it is to get rid of weeds in the field. There are sequoias aged several
thousand years that are found in nature. At the level of separate individuals
of a species this genetic system proves as the system with simple control
block, as simple automatic machine because the DNA molecule does not have
remote sensors, is has no analyzer-correlator and it is impossible to develop
conditioned reflexes in it during the lifespan of one individual. But at the
level of species of living systems genetic mechanism proves anyway as a system
with complex control block because it “has a notion” of space and it
has collective memory in the form of conditioned reflexes and it is able of
self-training (adaptation of species). It is for this reason that genetic
accumulation of collective experience occurs, which then is shown in the form
of instincts at the level of separate individuals of a species. This collective
genetic mechanism watches that tomato looks like tomato, a cockroach looks like
a cockroach and chimpanzee looks like a chimpanzee, and it watches that the
behavior of the systems is relevant. We do not know yet all the details of this
mechanism, although genomes of many living organisms, including human genomes,
are developed. We know that genes contain recorded genetic information on how
to structure this or another protein, but we do not know yet how, for example,
how the form of the nose constructed from this protein is preset. The gene is
known responsible for the generation of pigment that tinctures the iris
/orbital septum/ but we do not know how the form and the size of
this septum is coded. This mechanism is probably realized only partially in the
DNA itself, as a genome of an insect has much more in common, let’s say, with a
human genome, than the insect itself with the human being. We do not know how
the feelers of any insect of such-and-such length are programmed and where it
is recorded that it should have eight pedicles or one horn on its head. And why
from these proteins programmed in one of the DNA genes structures in the form
of the feelers should be built in this particular place, while the structures
in the form of intestinal tubules should be built in another place. Protein
molecules are very complex and gigantic formations in terms of molecular sizes
with a very sophisticated three-dimensional configuration. Probably, separate
molecules of certain albumen types, incidentally or non-incidentally, may
approach each other so that to form, like in a puzzle, the albuminous
conglomerate only of a specific shape. In that way it is possible to explain
both the form and sizes of albuminous structures. We can also assume that casually
assembled lame/poor forms have been rejected by evolution, while those
successful were purposefully fixed in genes. Consequently, the difference of
forms of organs constructed of identical proteins is explained by the
difference of the protein molecules structure? It may be true… But why then
keratin here is formed in the shape of elytra, and there – in the form of horns
or some kind of septa in the insect’s body? DNA only programs building material
– albumen/proteins, rather than the structure (form), i.e. the organs built of
these proteins, since DNA contains a record of only how to structure the
proteins (the “bricks” for building a structure). But where is “the drawing of
the entire building” and its configuration recorded? There are no answers for
the present. So, living systems have the purposeful genetic structural
regeneration which is intended for continual renewal of elements of the system.
Genetic mechanism uses the “database” recorded in DNA and realized by means of
RNA. If it were not for the failures in this system, there would have been no
mutations and variability of species. However, the “faulty” mechanism of
mutations is too much subjected to contingencies and cannot be target-oriented
just because of contingency (incidental self-organization). Reproductive
mechanism of mutations allows making selection by some features, and this is
exactly a purposeful mutation (purposeful self-organization). This mechanism
can change its program due to cross mating or at the moment of changing life
phases (larva→chrysalis→moth), although the possibilities of such
change are still very limited. A wolf will never beget a tiger and a trunk will
never grow in a wolf either, even if there would be a sudden need in it, at
least, for sure, not during the lifespan of one generation. But if me myself,
for example, need right now to “reconstruct” a hand to extend it and to tear
off a fruit from a tree, should I then wait for several generations to pass for
my hand to grow and extend? Can’t one get transmuted without resorting to
metabolism? It is possible if “conscious” self-organization is added. All
living beings, including humans, have genetic system of contingency
self-organization and in this sense the human being is the same animal as any
other animal. But “conscious” and purposeful type of self-organization is only
inherent in human beings. Systems with preset (target-oriented) properties will
always be forming only in the event that organization or reorganization of
systems is purposeful. Only the control block “knows” about the goal of the
system and only it can make a decision, including on the system reorganization.
However, not each control block is suitable for target-oriented reorganization.
In order to decide that “that system” needs to be attached to itself it is
necessary to “see” this system, know its property and define, even prior to
beginning interaction, whether these properties suit for the achievement of its
own purpose. And for this purpose it is necessary to be able to “see” and
assess the situation around the given system. All self-training systems are
able of making such an analysis. Therefore, many higher animals can reorganize
their body by enhancing its possibilities with additional executive elements.
They use tools of work (stones, sticks, etc.) for hunting food. But these
animals, perhaps, act at the level of instincts, i.e. at the level of genetic
self-organization, because even insects can use work tools. True “conscious”
self-organization at the given stage of evolution is only present in human
being because only he/she has analyzers-abstractors of respective degree of
complexity. Only the human being could develop instruments of labor up to the
level of modern technologies because it has second signaling system which
helped to accumulate the experience of the previous generations by fixing it in
the abstract form, in the form of the script. And only the human being using
this experience has realized that there exists metabolism in a living organism
and that it is possible to influence an organism so that to reorganize, if the
need arises (to cure sick organism). Structural regeneration is intended for conservation of
the systems’ structure. However, metabolism is not a full warranty from the
destruction of systems either. Plants cannot foresee the forthcoming
destruction because they do not possess the notion of space and they do not see
the situation around them, because they have simple control block. Fire will
creep up and burn a plant, the animal will approach and eat it, while the plant
will quietly  waiting for its lot because it does not see the surrounding
situation, does not know the forecast and it does not have corresponding
decisions regarding specific situations. That is why the systems emerged with
more complex control blocks (animals and humans) which can anticipate a
situation and protect themselves from destruction. Animals know about space and
see the situation around, because they have more complex control blocks. They
can compete very effectively with mineral and vegetative media. But competition
between the animal species has placed them in new circumstances. Now it is not
enough to have only complex control block and to see the surrounding situation.
In order to survive it is not enough only to be able of scampering or be strong
physically, it is necessary to better orient itself in space and better assess
the situation and be able to make conclusions of own failures in case of
survival. For this purpose it is necessary to develop control blocks. The more
complex the control block, the higher is the degree of safety. And now it is
not physical strength which is a criterion of advantage, but cognitive ability,
i.e. the more complex the control block is (the brain with all its hierarchy of
neural structures), the better. Knowledge is virtue. At that, the purposes of
metabolism in animals and humans are the same as in flora, i.e. reproduction of
systems and reproduction of elements of systems. Hence, in process of evolution
advancement to ensure higher degree of safety of systems, the possibilities of
regeneration in the form of metabolism were supplemented by intellectual
possibilities of control blocks. Regardless of what kind of nature the system
belongs to (mineral, vegetative, animal or human) one of its main purposes is
always to preserve itself and its structure. But in mineral nature there are
only passive ways of conservation, whereas in the organic nature active ways of
conservation do exist: self-organization at the expense of purposeful
metabolism. Therefore, struggle for food has always been the foundation of
existence. But metabolism only is not sufficient. Therefore, in animals new
active ways of protection are added: assessment of external situation and
protection from the destructive external influences (complex reflexes,
behavioral reactions). However, complex reflexes are not enough either, as it
is necessary also to learn new situations and be able of making new decisions
(reflexes to new stimuli/exciters). But these appeared to be insufficient as
well because of limitation of personal experience. Therefore, personal
experience was supplemented by collective experience for the account of the
first signaling system (conditioned reflexes: the first signaling system,
complex behavioral reactions). And as far as the lifespan of each system is
limited, in order to transfer experience to the subsequent generations second
signaling system emerged which allows to save personal experience of each
system in the form of the script  regardless of the system’s lifespan.
Consequently in order to better preserve itself, it is necessary for the system
to change and complicate continually the structure (evolution and development
of species) and, apparently to be on the safe side, it’s nevertheless better to
be more complex rather than simpler (evolution race). Thus, a system may have:
incidental organization; generation (incidental physical coincidence of exit
points of stimulator or result of action of one systems with the command entry
points of control block or entry points of external influence of other systems;
may be present in systems with any control blocks, including elementary);
degeneration (destruction, structural simplification, loss of SFU under the
influence of environment – other systems, may be the systems with any control
blocks, including  elementary); purposeful organization; forced generation
(purposeful physical combination of exit points of stimulator or result of
action of one systems with the command entry points of control block or entry
points of external influence of other systems; may be in systems with any
control blocks, including  elementary); forced degeneration (destruction,
structural simplification, loss of SFU of the system due to the purposeful
effect of other systems; may be in systems with any control blocks, including
elementary); self-organization; functional regeneration (operation of the
system proper, actuation or de-actuation of functions of own SFU, depending on
situational needs, without change of the structure; may be in systems with any
control blocks, including elementary); genetic structural regeneration in the
form of metabolism and reproduction of individuals directed towards
preservation of its structure (may be in systems with control blocks, starting
from simple ones); genetic structural regeneration in the form of
instinctive/subconscious/
structural reorganization aimed at strengthening the possibilities
of an organism by using other systems, that are not an immediate part of the
given system (subjects) (uses “genetic” memory and may be present in systems
with control blocks, starting from simple ones); conscious structural
regeneration directed to strengthening of possibilities of an organism by use
of other systems, not being an immediate part of the given system (subjects)
(various technologies; it is aimed at strengthening the possibilities of an
organism, may be present in systems with control blocks, starting from complex
ones with the second signaling system). As we can see, there is a succession
present in the given classification of organization of systems, as it
includes everything that exists in our World, starting from objects of mineral
nature and including human activities in the form of industrial technologies.

Evolution of our
World. We always say that the objects (systems) exist in our World /Unietse/and
they operate in it. Therefore it is necessary to give a definition of the
concept “our World”. We call “our World” the greatest and universal system in
which based on the law of hierarchy all objects exist as its subsystems which
can be part of it without coming into conflict with the laws of conservation
and cause-and-effect limitations. Such objects are target-oriented associations
of systemic functional units (SFU, elements) – the groups of elements
interacting with specific goal/purpose (systems, or rather subsystems of our
World). These include both the objects which existed before and are
non-existent now and those that exist now and will appear in the future as a
result of evolution. Absolutely all objects of our World have one or another
purpose. We do not know these purposes and we can only guess them, but they are
present in all the systems without exception. The purpose determines the laws
of existence and architecture (“anatomy”) of objects, limits interaction
between them or between their elements and stipulates the hierarchy of both
sub-goals and subsystems for the achievement of these sub-goals. But this
architecture is continually found insufficient (limited) because it is
determined by the law of cause-and-effect limitations. It forces the systems to
continuously seek the way to overcome these limitations, develops them and
determines direction of evolution of the systems. That is why the systems
develop towards their complexification and enhancement of their possibilities
(evolve). If there would be no limitations, there would be no sense in
evolution because ultimately the goal of evolution always consists in
overcoming the limitations. All objects of our World have at least two primary
goals: to be/exist in this World (to preserve themselves) to fulfill the goal
and to have maximum possibilities to perform the actions for the achievement of
the goal. However, any object of our World is limited in its possibilities to
varying extent due to the law of cause-and-effect limitations and moreover, since the
objects are continually exposed to various external influences destroying them,
the systems have to continually protect themselves from such destruction.
Therefore, the systems at first “have invented” passive and then active ways of protection
against such destructive influence. The process of “invention” of these ways of
protection and the enhancement of their possibilities is what evolution of
objects of our World means exactly, at that it implies not only the evolution
of living beings, but evolution of everything that exists in the world.
Consolidation of objects in groups strengthens them and ensures the possibility
for them to co-operate against destruction in a target-oriented manner. It is
for the reason of “survival” of elements that the systems came into being, and
complexification of elements just magnifies their possibilities. The simplest systems
are those having only simple control block. Such objects include all objects of
mineral nature, as well as plants. The possibilities of elementary particles
are too small, and the lifespan of many of them is too short. The lifetime and
possibility of an electron, proton or neutron are tenfold. Grouping of elements
not only increases their lifetime, but also increases their possibilities. What
can be done by electron (proton, neutron) cannot be done by elementary particles
constituting them. What can be done by atoms can not be done separately by
protons, neutrons and electrons. Grouping of atoms in
molecules has enabled the development of more complex systems, up to human
being, construction of which would have been impossible using elementary
particles. However, although in process of further consolidation of atoms and
molecules in conglomerates (mineral objects: gas clouds, liquid and solid
bodies) the possibilities of these objects increase, but their lifetime starts
to decrease sharply because the law of negative entropy works. Destruction is
the loss by the object of its SFU. There are only two ways to prevent from
destruction: increase in durability of connections/bonds between the SFU,
restoration of the lost SFU, prevention of the SFU losses. The first one is
passive, while the other two are active ways of protection. The increase in
durability of connections/bonds between the SFU (the first way) is the passive
way of protection against destruction. Mineral bodies have only these
passive means of protection from the destructive effect of the external medium.
The weakest of them are gaseous objects, while the strongest are crystalline.
But even the strongest crystal may be destroyed. Metabolism is aimed at the restoration
of the lost SFU (the second way) and is the active way of protection of systems
from destruction. It is carried out at the expense of capture of necessary
elements from the external medium. There is no metabolism in mineral objects,
but it is present in all living objects, including plants. Hence, our World can
be divided conditionally into two sub-worlds: inanimate/inorganic and animate
nature. The criterion for such division is metabolism – the purposeful process
of restoration of the lost SFU. But for such process the system should contain
corresponding elements (metabolism organs) which are not present in the objects
of mineral inorganic nature, but do exist in plants. Prevention of SFU losses
(the third way) is also an active way of systems’ protection from their
destruction. Systems may be prevented from destruction for the account of their
behavioral reactions depending on the external situation. If the situation is
threatening the system needs to escape from the given situation. But for this
purpose it is necessary to be aware about this situation, to be able to see it,
as well as to have organs of movement which are nonexistent in the systems of
mineral and vegetative nature. For this purpose it is necessary to have at
least complex control block. Hence, in the animate nature it is possible to
single out two more sub-worlds/natures: flora and fauna. The criterion for such
division is the complexity of the control block and its ability (the availability of
possibility) to show behavioral reactions. The more complex the control block,
the higher is the development of animal as a system. But at that, note should
be taken of the fact that the development of systems from plants to animals was
basically solving only one problem – to be/exist in this World. The purport of
existence of plants and the majority (if not of all) of animals, except for
humans, is only in the metabolism. If the system is hungry it operates, if is
satiated it stays idle. Yes, with complication of the control block simultaneous
increase in the possibilities of systems occurred too, but it still pursued the
goals of metabolism. More adapted animal feeds better. If the system plays and
lives jolly (emotional tint of behavioral reactions), such reactions as a rule
are still directed towards self-training of systems for better hunting for
other systems. Therefore such reactions are basically inherent in young
animals. More adult individuals do not play any more. Note should be also taken
of that division of animals into predators and herbivorous animals is quite
conditional, since it is not eating meat that is a distinctive feature of a
predator and plants may also be carnivorous (for example, sundew and the like).
Absolutely all animals, and not only them, but plants as well, are predators,
since they represent the systems which feed on other systems. Even among the
objects of mineral nature mutual relations of a victim-predator type may be
found. Some systems (plants and herbivores) feed on systems with simple control
blocks (mineral objects and plants) because it is easier thing to do. However,
other systems (carnivorous) feed or try to feed on systems with complex control
blocks (other animals), although it is much more complex to do so. That is why
the donkey is more stupid than a tiger. The human being differs from other
objects of animate nature first of all in that it is not metabolism which is
the main purport of his/her life, but cognition. Yes, the higher the level of
knowledge, the better the nutrition. But the process of cognition in itself
prevails over all other processes aimed at metabolism. And even the metabolism
itself is raised to the rank of art (the cookery). It is also possible to
single out the human nature in that way as well, since only a human being out
of all objects of our World has second signaling system (the intellectual
control block) and aspiration towards cognition. Hence, the purpose of our
World was evolution which has stipulated the development of systems in the
direction towards complexification of their control blocks up to a human being.
And the purpose of this evolution was to develop systems to such a degree that
they have learnt to cognize the World. We can look back and see the
confirmation of it throughout the entire history of development of our World in
general and biosphere in particular. We do not know what was before the Big
Bang, and we do not even know to which extent such statement is qualified.
However, after it only the emergence and complexification of systems in the
Universe was taking place, at that it occurred only at the expense of
complexification  of their control blocks, because their primary SFU
(elementary particles) practically have not changed since then neither
qualitatively, nor quantitatively. And we, the people, are the consequence and
the proof of this development either. The human being is the most complex
system, the top of evolution which has occurred till nowadays. Experience of
this evolution shows that major distinctive feature throughout the entire
process of advanced development was only the development of control blocks of
systems. We do not know the purposes of the majority of systems of our World,
although we can fabricate a multitude of speculations on many issues of this
subject. For example, nuclei of atoms of chemical elements that are heavier
than iron in those quantities which exist now in our Universe, could only and
only appear as the result of explosions of supernovas. Hence, is the purpose of
stars with evolution of a supernova type is the production of nuclei of atoms
harder than iron? It may be true, although no one would avouch for it for the
present. But we can surely state that a human being in the shape it exists
today and is known to us would not have been existent without the elements
having atomic weight heavier that iron, because the structure of its organism
requires the presence of such elements. So, there are sufficient grounds for
the assumption that stars of a supernova type are necessary for the development
of the humans. It sounds strange and extraordinary, but still it’s the fact.
But we know for sure and without speculations the purposes of some of the
World’s systems, in particular, the purposes of many systems of organism. We
know one of the main objectives of any living organism – to survive in the
environment, and we know the hierarchy of sub-goals into which this purpose is
broken down. We see how living systems develop on the way of evolution, we see
the differences of systems standing at different levels of evolutionary process
and we can explain the advantage of some systems over the others. In other
words, the possibility is opened to us to construct classification of all
systems of our World, including that of living systems. Today there is no uniform classification
of all objects of our World, but there are only separate classifications of
various groups of these objects, including classifications of astronomical,
geological, biological and other groups. At that, nowadays the underlying
principle of the majority, if not of all of these classifications, including
classification of both the entire animate nature and the diseases, is the
organic-morphological analysis. But probably it is necessary to substitute it,
as well as classification of diseases, for the classification based on systemic
analysis – the analysis of the goals/purposes. And the basic principle of the
new classification should be not external distinctions, such as the number of
feet or cones on the teeth, but two basic differences: differences by types of
control blocks and types of executive elements. Moreover, it is necessary to
include all objects of our World in this classification – animate and
inanimate, because our World is replete only with systems which differ from
each other only in the degree of development of their control blocks and in the
ways of protection against destruction by the external media. The world is
uniform, because it is a system in itself. Therefore, it is necessary to create
common and single classification of all systems of our World. And systems are
any objects, including animate/organic and inanimate/inorganic. Then it will be
possible to distinguish four worlds/natures (sub-natures) of objects in our
World: the world of minerals/mineral nature/, vegetative, animal
worlds/natures/ and the world of humans/the human nature/. The population of
each world differs from each other, as it was repeatedly underlined, only in
control blocks and metabolism. The objects of mineral and vegetative nature
have simple control blocks. But the objects of mineral nature have only passive
ways of protection against negative entropy (destruction). And all living subjects,
including plants, have active ways of protection against the same negative
entropy, i.e. active substitution of the destroyed SFU at the expense of
metabolism. Animals, unlike plants, in addition to metabolism, have more
complex control blocks which enable behavioral reactions and thus allow them to
control in a varying degree surrounding situation. And the humans have the most
complex control block which contains the second signaling system and
consequently it is capable of cognizing the whole World, including themselves,
but not just what happens/exists nearby. And within each type of nature
classification we should also proceed further to include the criteria of
complexity of control blocks and then the criteria of presence and the degree
of development of executive elements, including the number of feet or cones on
the teeth. In this case classification will be the one of cause-and-effect type
and logical. For example, vegetative nature/the flora/ includes not only
plants, but all the Earth’s population which possesses only simple control
block and metabolism. And those are not only plants and not only metazoan.
Procaryotes and eukaryotes, bacteria, phytoplankton, sea anemones, corals,
polyps, fungi, trees, herbs, mosses and lichens and many others possessing and
those not possessing chlorophyll are all flora. They simply grow in space and
they have no idea of it because they “do not see” it. However, some plants, for
example, trees or herbs, unlike corals, fungi or polyps, contain
chlorophyll (specific executive element). Such classification of systems has
one incontestable advantage: it aligns everything that populates our World –
the systems. The whole World around us is classified by a single scale, where
the unit of measure is only the complexity of control block and executive
elements used by it. In that way it would be easier for us to understand what
life is. May it be so that inanimate nature does not exist at all? Perhaps,
“animate” differs from “inanimate” only in that it “has comprehended” its own
exposure to destruction under the influence of environment and first has learnt
self-restorability and then it learnt how to protect itself from destructions?
Then Pierre Teyjar De Chardin is right asserting that
evolution is a process of arousal of consciousness. Currently existing classifications do
not provide the answer to this question. New classification of systems based on
the systemic target-oriented analysis will make it possible to understand,
where the “ceiling” of development of systems of each of the worlds is and
which of its subjects are still at the beginning of the evolutionary scale and
which of them have already climbed up its top. But this classification is based
on the recognition of the first-priority role of the goal/purpose on the whole
and purposefulness of nature in particular, which idea is disputable for the
present and is not accepted by all. Therefore, queer position was
characteristic for the XX century: the position of struggle with nature,
position which is still shared by a great many. This position is fundamentally
erroneous, because the nature is not our enemy, but the “parent”, the tutor and
friend. It “produced” us and “nurtured” us, having provided a cradle, the Earth
for us, and it has been creating greenhouse conditions throughout many millions
years, where fluctuations of temperature were no more than 100ºC and the
pressure about 1 atmosphere, with plenty of place, sufficient moisture and
energy, although Space is characterized by range of temperatures in many
millions degrees and of pressure in millions atmospheres. It has brought us up
and made us strong, using evolution and the law of competition: “the strongest
survives”. It is not our task “to take from it”, nor to struggle with it, but
to understand and collaborate with it, because it is not our enemy, but the
teacher and partner. It “knows” itself what we need and gives it to us,
otherwise we would not have existed. This is not an ode to the nature, but the
statement of fact of its purposefulness. Some may object that such combination
of natural conditions which has led to the origination of human being is just a
mere fortuity which has arisen under the law of large numbers only because the
World is very large and all kind of options are possible in it. However, that
many incidental occurrences are kind of suspicious. The nature continually
“puts stealthily” various problems before us, but every time the level of these
problems for some reason completely corresponds to the level of development of
an animal or a human being. For some reason a man “has discovered” a nuclear
bomb at the moment when he could already apprehend the power of this discovery.
Nature does not give dangerous toys to greenhorns. If there were no problems at
all, there would be no stimulus to development and as of today the Earth would
have been populated by the elementary systems, if it were populated at all.
However, if the problems sharply exceed the limit of possibilities of systems,
the latter would have collapsed and the Earth would have not been populated at
all, if it would be existent in abstracto. And in any case there would have
been no development on the whole. But we do exist and it is the fact which has
to be taken into account and which requires explanation. And the explanation
only consists in the purposefulness of Nature.

Systemic analysis
is a process of receiving answer to the question “Why is the overall goal of
the system fulfilled (not fulfilled)?” The notion of “systemic analysis”
includes other two notions: “system” and “analysis”. The notion of “system” is
inseparably linked with the notion of the “goal/purpose of the system”. The notion
“analysis” means examination by parts and arranging systematically
(classification). Hence, the “systemic analysis” is the analysis of the
goal/purpose of the system by its sub-goals (classification or hierarchy of the
goals/purposes) and the analysis of the system by its subsystems
(classification or hierarchy of systems) with the view of clarifying which
subsystems and why can (can not) fulfill the goals (sub-goals) set forth before
them. Any systems perform based on the principle “it is necessary and
sufficient” which is an optimum control principle. The notion “it is necessary”
determines the quality of the purpose, while the notion “is suficient”
determines its quantity. If qualitative and quantitative parameters of the
purpose of the given system can be satisfied, then the latter is sufficient. If
the system cannot satisfy some of these parameters of the goal, it is
insufficient. Why the given system cannot fulfill the given purpose? This
question is answered by systemic analysis. Systemic analysis can show that
such-and-such object “consists of… for…”, i.e. for what purpose the given
object is made, of what elements it consists of and what role is played by each
element for the achievement of this goal/purpose. The
organic-morphological analysis, unlike systemic analysis, can show that
such-and-such object “consists of… “, i.e. can only show of which elements
the given object consists. Systemic analysis is not made arbitrarily, but is
based on certain rules. The key conditions of systemic analysis are the account
of complexity and hierarchy of goals/purposes and systems.

Complexity of
systems. It is necessary to specify the notion of complexity of system. We have
seen from the above that complexification of systems occurred basically for the
account of complexification of control block. At that, complexity of executive
elements could have been the most primitive despite the fact that control block
at that could have been very complex. The system could contain only one type
SFU and even only one SFU, i.e. to be monofunctional. But at the same time it
could carry out its functions very precisely, with the account of external
situation and even with the account of possibility of occurrence of new
situations, if it had sufficiently complex control block. When the analysis of
the complexity of system is made from the standpoint of cybernetics, the
communication, informo-dynamics, etc. theories the subject discussed is the
complexity of control block, rather than the complexity of the system. Note should
be taken of that regardless of the degree of the system complexity two flows of
activity are performed therein: information flow and a flow of target-oriented
actions of the system. Information flow passes through the control block,
whereas the flow of target-oriented actions passes through executive elements.
Nevertheless, the notion of complexity may also concern the flows of
target-oriented actions of systems. There exist mono- and multifunctional
systems. There are no multi-purpose systems, but only mono-purpose systems,
although the concept of “multi-purpose system” is being used. For example, they
say that this fighter-bomber is multi-purpose because it can bomb and shoot
down other aircrafts. But this aircraft still has only one general purpose: to destroy
the enemy’s objects. This fighter-bomber just has more possibilities than a
simple fighter or simple bomber. Hence, the notion of complexity concerns only
the number and quality of actions of the system, which are determined by a
number of levels of its hierarchy (see below), but not the number of its
elements. Dinosaurs were much larger than mammals (had larger number of
elements), but have been arranged much simpler. The simplest system is SFU
(Systemic Functional Unit). It fulfills its functions very
crudely/inaccurately as the law that works is the “all-or-none” one and the
system’s actions are the most primitive. Any SFU is the simplest/elementary
defective system and its inferiority is shown in that such system can provide
only certain quality of result of action, but cannot provide its optimum
quantity. Various SFU may differ by the results of their actions (polytypic
SFU), but they may not differ either (homotypic SFU). However, all of them work
under the “all-or-none” law. In other words, the result of its action has no
gradation or is zero (non-active phase), or maximum (active phase). SFU either
reacts to external influence at maximum (result of action is maximum – “all”),
or waits for external influence (the result of action is zero – “none”) and
there is no gradation of the result of action. Each result of SFU action is a
quantum (indivisible portion) of action. Monofunctional systems possess only
one kind of result of action which is determined by their SFU type. They may
contain any quantity of SFU, from one to maximum, but in any case these should
be homotypic SFU. Their difference from the elementary system is only in the
quantity of the result of action (quantitative difference). The monofunctional
system may anyway perform its functions more accurately as its actions have
steps of gradation of functions. The accuracy of performance of function
depends on the value of action of single SFU, the NF intensity and the type of
its control block, while the capacity depends on the number of SFU. The
“smaller” the SFU, the higher the degree of possible accuracy is. The larger
the number of SFU, the higher the capacity is. So, if the structure of the
system’s executive elements (SFU structure) is homotypic, it is then
multifunctional and simple system. But at that, its control block, for example,
may be complex. In this case the system is simple with complex control block.
The multifunctional system is a system which contains more than one type of
monofunctional systems. It possesses many kinds of result of action and may
perform several various functions (many functions). Any complex system may be
broken down into several simple systems which we have already discussed above.
The difference of multifunctional system from the monofunctional one is that
the latter consists of itself and includes homotypic SFU, while complex system
consists of several monofunctional systems with different SFU types. And at
that, these several simple systems are controlled by one common control block
of any degree of complexity. The difference between monofunctional and
multifunctional systems is in the quantity and quality of SFU. In order to
avoid confusion of the complexity of systems with the complexity of their
control block, it is easier to assume that there are monofunctional (simple) and
multifunctional (complex) systems. In this case the concept of complexity of
system would only apply to control block. In monofunctional system control
block operates a set of own SFU regardless of the degree of its complexity. In multifunctional
system control block of any degree of complexity operates several
monofunctional subsystems, each of which has its SFU with their control blocks.
It is complexity of control block that stipulates the complexity of the system,
and not only the type of system, but the appurtenance of the given object to
the category of systems. The presence of an appropriate control block
conditions the presence of a system, whereas the absence of (any) control block
conditions the absence of a system. Systems may have control blocks of a level
not lower than simple. The full-fledged system can not have the
simplest/elementary control block, whereas the SFU can.

So, the system is
an object of certain degree of complexity which may tailor its functions to the
load (to external influence). If its structure contains more than one SFU, the
result of its action has the number of gradations equal to the number of its
SFU or (identically) the number of quanta of action. The number of the system’s
functions is determined by the number of polytypic monofunctional systems
comprising the given system. In former times development of life was
progressing towards the enlargement of animal body which provided some kind of
guarantee in biological competition (quantitative competition during the epoch of
dinosaurs). But the benefits has proven doubtful, the advantages turned out to
be less than disadvantages, that is why monsters have died out. This is horizontal development of systems. If they differ in quality it is
tantamount to the emergence of new multifunctional systems. Such construction
of new systems is the development of systems along the vertical axis.  The
example of it is complexification of living organisms in process of evolution,
from elementary unicellular to metazoan and the human being. What can be done
by man can not be done by a reptile. However, what can be done by reptile can
not be done by an infusorian (insect, jellyfish, amoeba, etc.).
Complexification of living organisms occurred only for one cardinal purpose: to
survive in whatever conditions (competition of species). Since conditions of
existence are multifarious, the living organism as a system should be
multifunctional. The character of a new system is determined by the structure
of executive elements and control block features. If there is a need to extend
the amplitude or the capacity of system’s performance the structure of
executive elements should be uniform. To increase the amplitude of the system’s
performance all SFU are aligned in a sequential series, while to increase the
capacity – in a parallel series depending on the required quantity of the
result of action (amplitude or capacity at the given concrete moment).
Polytypic SFU have different purposes and consequently they have different functions.
The differences of SFU stipulate their specialization, whereby each of them has
special function inherent in it only. If the structure of any system comprises
polytypic SFU, such system would be differentiated, having elements with
different specialization. In systems with uniform SFU all elements have
identical specialization. Therefore, there is no differentiation in such
system. So, the concept of specialization characterizes a separate element,
whereas the concept of differentiation characterizes the group of elements. The
number of SFU in real systems is always finite and therefore the possibilities
of real systems are finite and limited, too. Resources of any system depend on
the number of SFU comprising its structure in the capacity of executive elements.
The pistol may produce as many shots as is the number of cartridges available
in it, and no more than that. The less the number of SFU is available in the
system, the smaller the range of changes of external influence can lead to the
exhaustion of its resources and the worse is its resistance to the external
influence. By integrating various SFU in more and more complex systems it is
possible to construct the systems with any preset properties (quality of the
result of action) and capacities (amount of quanta of the result of action). At
that, the elements of systems are the systems themselves, of a lower order
though (subsystems) for these systems. And the given system itself may also be
an element for the system of higher order. This is where the essence of
hierarchy of systems lies.

 Hierarchy of
goals/purposes and systems. The more complex the system, the wider the variety
of external influences to which it reacts. But the system should always produce
only specific (unique, univocal) reaction to certain influence (or certain
combination of external influences) or specific series of reactions
(unique/univocal series of reactions). In other words, the system always reacts
only to one certain external influence and always produces only one specific reaction.
But we always see “multi”-reactive systems. For example, we react to light,
sound, etc. At the same time we can stand, run, lay, eat, shout, etc., i.e. we
react to many external influences and we do many various actions. There is no
contradiction here, as both the purposes and reactions may be simple and
complex. The final overall objective of the system represents the logic sum of
sub-goals/sub-purposes of its subsystems. The goal/purpose is built of
sub-goals/sub-purposes. For example, the living organism has only one, but very
complex purpose – to survive, by all means, and for this purpose it should
feed. And for this purpose it is necessary to deliver nutriment for histic
cells from the external medium. And for this purpose it is necessary first to
get it. And for this purpose it is necessary to be able to run quickly (to fly,
bite, grab, snap, etc.). Thereafter it is necessary to crush it, otherwise it
won’t be possible to swallow it (chewing). Then it is necessary to “crush” long
albumen molecules (gastric digestion). Then it is necessary to “crush” the
scraps of the albumen molecules even to the smaller particles (digestion in
duodenum). Then it is necessary to bring in the digested food to blood affluent
to intestine (parietal digestion). Then it is necessary… And such “is
necessary” may be quite many. But each of these “is necessary” is determined by
a sub-goal at each level of hierarchy of purposes. And for every such sub-goal
there exists certain subsystem at the respective level of hierarchy of
subsystems. At that, each of them performs its own function. And in that way a
lot of functions are accumulated in a system. However, all this hierarchy of
functions is necessary for one unique cardinal purpose: to survive in this
world. Any object represents a system and consists of elements, while each
element is intended for the fulfillment of respective sub-goals (subtasks). The
system has an overall specific goal and any of its elements represents a system
in itself (subsystem of the given system), which has its own goal (sub-goal)
and own result of action. When we say “overall specific goal” we mean not the
goals/purposes of elements of the system, but the general/overall/ purpose
which is reached by means of their interactions. The system has a goal/purpose
which is not present in each of its element separately. But the overall goal of
the system is split into sub-goals and these sub-goals are the purposes of its
elements anyway. There are no systems in the form of indivisible object and any
system consists of the group of elements. And each element, in turn, is a
system (subsystem) in itself with its own purpose, being a sub-goal of the
overall goal/general purpose/. To achieve the goal the system performs series
of various actions and each of them is the result of action of its elements.
The logic sum of all results of actions of the system’s subsystems is final
function – the result of action of the given system. Thus, one cardinal purpose
determines the system, while the sub-goal determines the subsystem. And so on
and so forth deep into a hierarchy scale. The goal/purpose is split into
sub-goals/sub-purposes and the hierarchy of purposes (logically connected chain
of due actions) is built. To perform this purpose the system is built which consists
of subsystems, each of which has to fulfill their respective sub-goals and
capable to yield necessary respective result of action. That is how the
hierarchy of subsystems is structured. The number of subsystems in the system
is equal to he number of subtasks (subgoals) into which the overall goal is
broken down. For example, the system is sited at a zero level of hierarchy, and
all its subsystems are sited at a minus one, minus two, etc. levels,
accordingly. The order of numeration of coordinates is relative. It means that
the given system may enter the other, larger system, in the capacity of its
subsystem. Then the larger system will be equalized to zero level, whereas the
given system will be its subsystem and sited at a minus one level. The hierarchy
scale of systems is built on the basis of hierarchy of goals/purposes.
Target-specific actions of systems are performed by its executive elements, but
to manage their target-oriented interaction the interaction of control block of
the system with control blocks of its subsystems is needed. Therefore, the
hierarchy scale of systems is, as a matter of fact, a hierarchic scale of
control blocks of systems. This scale is designed based on a pyramid principle:
one boss on top (the control block of the entire system), a number of its
concrete subordinates below (control blocks of the system’s subsystems), their
concrete subordinates under each of them (control blocks of the lower level
subsystems), etc. At each level of hierarchy there exist own control blocks
regulating the functions of respective subsystems. Hierarchical relations
between control blocks of various levels are built on the basis of
subordination of lower ranking blocks to those of higher level. In other words,
the high level control block gives the order to the control blocks of lower level.
Only 4 levels of hierarchy, from 0 to 3rd, are presented. The count
is relative, whereby the level of the given system is assumed to be zero. The
counting out may be continued both in the direction of higher and lower
(negative) figures/values. The notions of “order” and “level” are identical.
The notions of “system” and “subsystem” are identical, too. For example,
instead of expression “a subsystem of minus second-order” one may say “a system
of minus second-level”. And although a zero level is assumed the level of the
system itself, the latter may be a part of other higher order system in the
capacity of its subsystem. Then the number of its level can already become
negative (relative numeration of level). Elements of each hierarchic level of
systems are the parts of system, its subsystems, the systems of lower order.
Therefore, the notions “part”, “executive element”,  “subsystem”, “system” and
in some cases even “element” are identical and relative. The choice of term is
dictated only by convenience of accentuating the place of the given element in
the hierarchy of system. The notion of hierarchic scale (or pyramid principle)
is a very powerful tool and it embodies principal advantage of systemic
analysis. Systemic analysis is impossible without this concept. Both our entire
surrounding world and any living organism consist of infinite number of various
elements which are relating to each other in varying ways. It is impossible to
analyze all enormous volume of information characterizing infinite number of
various elements. The concept of hierarchy of systems sharply restricts the
number of elements subjected to the analysis. In the absence of it we should
take into account all levels of the world around us, starting from elementary
particles and up to global systems, such as an organism, a biosphere, a planet
and so on. For global evaluation of any system it is sufficient to analyze
three levels only: the global level of the system itself (its place in the hierarchy
of higher systems); the level of its executive elements (their place in the
hierarchy of the system itself); the level of its control elements (elements of
control block of the system itself). To evaluate the system’s function it is
necessary to determine the conformity of the result of action of the given
system with its purpose – due result of action (global level of function of the
system), the number of its subsystems and the conformity of their results of
action with their purposes – due results of their action (local functional
levels of executive elements) and evaluate the function of elements of control.
In the long run the maximum level of function of system is determined by the
logic sum of results of actions of all subsystems comprising its structure and
optimality of control block performance. Abiding by the following chain of
reasoning: “the presence of the goal/purpose for implementation of any specific
condition, the presence of qualitative or quantitative novelty of the result of
action, the presence of a control (block) loop” it is possible to single out elements
of any concrete system, show its hierarchy and divide cross systems in which
the same elements perform various functions. Systems work under the logical law
which main principle is the fulfillment of condition “… if…, then….”. In
this condition “if  ..” is the argument (purpose), while “then…” is the
function (the result of action). This condition stipulates determinism in
nature and hierarchy scale. Any law, natural or social, requires implementation
of some condition and the basis of any condition is this logical connective
“… if…, then…” At that, this logical connective concerns only two
contiguous subsystems on a hierarchic scale. The argument “… if” is always specified
by the system which is on a higher step, whereas the function “then…” is always
performed by the system (subsystem) sited immediately underneath, at a lower
step of a hierarchic scale. Actions of elements per se and interaction between
the elements may be based on the laws of physics or chemistry (laws of
electrodynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics, social or quantum laws, etc.).
But the operation of control block is based only on the logical laws. And as
far as control block determines the character of function of systems, it is
arguable that systems work under the logic laws. Sometimes in human communities
the “bosses” would imagine they may govern/control/ at any levels, but such
type of management is the most inefficient one. The best type of management is
when the director (the control block of multifunctional system)
controls/manages/ only the chiefs of departments (control blocks of
monofunctional systems), sets forth feasible tasks before them and demands the
implementation thereof. At that, the number of its “assistant chiefs” should
not exceed 7±2 (Muller’s number). If some department does not implement its
objectives, it means that either the departmental management (control block of
a subsystem) is no good because has (a) failed to thoroughly devise and
distribute the tasks between the subordinates (the SFU), or (b) has
inadequately selected average executives (SFU), or (c) impracticable goal has
been set forth before the department (before system), or (d) the director
himself (control block of the system) is no class for the management. In such
cases the system’s reorganization is necessary. But if the system is well
elaborated and performs normally there is no sense for the director to “pry” into the
department’s routine affairs. A chief of department is available for this
purpose. The decision of the system reorganization is only taken when the
system for some reason cannot fulfill the objective (system crisis). In the
absence of crisis there is no sense in reorganization. For the purpose of
reorganization the system changes the structure of its executive and control
elements both at the expense of actuation (de-actuation) of additional
subsystems and alteration of exit-entry combinations of these elements. In such
cases skipping of some steps of hierarchy may occur and the principle “vassal
of my vassal is not my vassal” violated. This is where the essential point of
the system reorganization lies. At the same time, part of elements can be
thrown out from the system as superfluous (that’s how at one time we lost, for
example, cauda and branchiae), while other part may be included in the system’s
structure or shifted on the hierarchy scale. But all that may only happen in
process of the system reorganization proper. When the process of reorganization
comes to an end and the reorganized system is able of performing the goal set
forth before it (i.e. starts to function normally), the control law of “vassal
of my vassal is not my vassal” is restored.

Consequences
ensuing from axioms.

Independence of
purpose. The purpose/goal does not depend on the object (system) as it is
determined not by the given object or its needs, but by the need of other
object in something (is dictated by the external medium or other system). But
the notion of “system” in relation to the given object depends on the purpose,
i.e. on the adequacy of possibilities of the given object to execute the goal
set. The goal is set from the outside and the object is tailored to comply with
it, but not other way round. Only in this case the object presents a system.
Note should be taken again of the singularity of the first consequence: the
system’s purpose/goal is determined by a need for something for some other
object (external medium or other system). Common sense suggests that supposedly
survivability is the need of the given organism (the given system). But it
follows from the first consequence that the need to survive proceeds not from
the given organism, but is set to it by another system external with respect to
it, for example, the nature, and the organism tries to fulfill this objective.

Specialization of
the system’s functions. In response to certain (specific) external influence
the system always produces certain (specific) result of action. Specialization
means purposefulness. Any system is specialized (purposeful) and follows from
the axiom. There are no systems in abstracto, there are systems that are
concrete. Therefore, any system has its specific purpose/goal. Executive
elements (executive SFU) of some systems may be homotypic (identical,
non-differentiated from each other). If executive elements differ from each
other (are multitype), the given system consists of differentiated elements.

System  integrity.
The system exerts itself as a unitary and integral object. It follows from the
unity of purpose which is inherent only in the system as a whole, but not in
its separate elements in particular. The purpose consolidates the system’s
elements in a comprehensive whole.

Limited discrecity
of system. Nothing is indivisible and any system may be divided into parts. At
the same time, any system consists of finite number of elements (parts):
executive elements (subsystems, elements, SFU) and management elements (control
block).

Hierarchy of
system. The elements of a system relate to each other in varying ways and the
place of each of them is the place on the hierarchic scale of the system.
Hierarchy of systems is stipulated by hierarchy of purposes. Any system has a
purpose. And to achieve this purpose it is necessary to achieve a number of
smaller sub-goals for which the large system contains a number of subsystems of
various degree of complexity, from minimum (SFU) up to maximum possible
complexity. Hierarchy is the difference between the purposes of the system and
the purposes of its elements (subsystems) which are the sub-goals in respect to
it. At that, the systems of higher order set the goals before the systems of
lower order. So, the purpose of the highest order is subdivided into a number
of sub-goals (the purposes of lower order). The hierarchy of purposes
determines the hierarchy of systems. To achieve each of the sub-goals specific
element is required (it follows from the conservation law). Management/control
in a hierarchic scale is performed in accordance with the law “the vassal of my
vassal is not my vassal”. In other words, direct control is only possible at
the level “system — own subsystem”, and the control by super system of the
subsystem of its system is impossible. The tsar, should he wish to behead a criminal,
would not do it himself, but would give a command to his subordinate
executioner.

System function.
The result of the system’s performance is its function. To achieve the purpose
the system should perform purposefully certain actions the result of which
would be the system’s function. The purpose is the argument for the system
(imperative), while the result of action of the system is its function. The
system’s functions are determined by a set of executive elements, their
relative positioning and control block. The notions of “system” and “function”
are inseparable. Nonfunctional systems are non-existent. “Functional system” is
a tautology, because all systems are functional. However, there may be systems
which are non-operational at the moment (in a standby mode). Following certain
external influence upon the system it will necessarily yield certain specific
result of action (it will function). In the absence of the external influence
the system produces no actions (does not function). When taking into account
the purpose, the argument is not the external influence, but the purpose. One
should distinguish internal functions of the system (sub-function) belonging to
its elements (to subsystems, SFU) and the external functions belonging to the
entire system as a whole. The system’s external function of emergent property is the result of its own action produced by the
system. Internal functions of the system are the results of action of its
elements.

Effectiveness of
systems. Correspondence of the result of action to the goal set characterizes
the effectiveness of systems. Effectiveness of systems is directly linked with
their function. The system’s function in terms of effectiveness may be
sufficient, it may by hyperfunction, decelerating and completely (absolutely)
insufficient function. The system performs some actions and it leads to the
production of the result of its action which should meet the purpose for which
the given system is created. Effectiveness of systems is based on their
specialization. “The boots should be sown by shoemaker”. Doing the opposite
does not always result in real systems’ actions that meet the target/preset
results (partial effectiveness or its absence). The result of action of the
system (its function) should completely correspond qualitatively and
quantitatively to the preset purpose. It may mismatch, be incidental or even
antagonistic (counter-purposeful); at that, real systems may produce all these
kinds of results of action simultaneously. Only in ideal systems the result may
completely meet the preset purpose (complete effectiveness). But systems with
100% performance factor are unknown to us. Integral result (integral function)
is the sum of separate collateral/incidental and useful results of action. It
is this sum that determines the appurtenance of the given object to the notion
of “system” with regard to the given purpose. If the sum is positive, then with
respect to the preset purpose the given object is a system of one or other
efficiency. If the sum is equal to zero, the object is not a system with
respect to the given purpose (neutral object). If the sum is negative, the
given object is an anti-system (the system with minus sign preventing from the
achievement of the goal/purpose). It applies both to systems and their
elements. The higher the performance factor, the more effective the system is.
Discrepancy of the result of action of the given system with the due value
depends on unconformity of quantitative and qualitative resources of the
system, for example, owing to breakage (destruction) or improper and/or
insufficient development of its executive elements (SFU) and/or control.
Therefore, any object is an element of a system only in the event that its
actions (function) meet the achievement of the preset goal/purpose. Otherwise
it is not an element of the given system. Effectiveness of systems is
completely determined by limitation of actions of the systems.

Limitation of
system’s actions. Any system is characterized by qualitative and quantitative
resources. The notion of resources includes the notion of functional reserve:
what actions and how many of such actions the system may perform. Qualitative
resources are determined by type of executive elements (SFU type), while
quantitative resources by their quantity. And since real systems have certain
and finite (limited) number of elements, it implies that real systems have
limited qualitative and quantitative resources. “Qualitative resources” means
“which actions” (or “what”) the given system is able to perform (to press,
push, transfer, retain, supply, secrete, stand in somebody’s light, etc.).
“Quantitative resources” means “how many units of measure” (liters, mm Hg,
habitation units, etc.) of such actions the given system is able to perform.

Communicativeness
of systems. Conjugate systems interact with each other. Such communication
implicates the link/connection between the systems, i.e. their communicativeness. We discern open and closed systems. However,
there are no completely isolated (closed) systems in our world which are not
affected by some kind of external influence and which are nowise influencing
any other systems. One may find at least two systems which are nowise
interacting with each other (do not react) among themselves, but one can always
find the third system (and probably the group of intermediate systems will be
required) which will interact with (react to) the first two, i.e. be a link
between them. If any system does not react at all to any influences exerted by
any other systems and its own results of action are absolutely neutral with
respect to other systems, and it is impossible to find the third system or a
group of systems with which this system could interact (react to), it means
that the given system does not exist in our World. Interaction between systems may be
strong or weak, but it should be present, otherwise the systems do not exist
for each other. Interaction is performed for the account of chains of actions:
“… external influence → result of action…”  By closing the end of
such chain to its beginning we will get a closed (self-contained) system. The
result of action after its “birth” does not depend on the system which has
“gave birth” to it. Therefore, it may become external influence for the system
itself. Then it will be a cyclically operating system, a generator with
positive feedback. But the generator, too, requires for its performance the
energy coming from the outside. Consequently, it is to some extent opened
either. That is why the absolutely closed systems are non-existent. Each system has a
certain number of internal and external links/connections (between the elements
and between the systems, accordingly), through which the system may interact
with other external systems. Closeness (openness) of a system is determined by the
ratio of the number of internal and external links/connections. The larger the
ratio, the greater the degree of closeness of a system is. Space objects of a
“black holes” type are assumed to be referring to closed systems because even
photons cannot break off from them. But they react with other space bodies
through gravitation which means that they “are opened” through the gravitation
channel through which they “evaporate” (disappear).

Controllability of
systems. Any system contains elements (systems) of control which supervise the
correspondence between the result of action of the system and the goal set.
These control elements form the control block. Management of system is carried
out through commands given to its control block, whereas the control
over its executive elements is exercised through sending commands to their
control blocks. Any reflex is the manifestation of the work of the control
block. And as far as control block is the integral accessory of any systems,
any systems have their own reflexes. Executive elements should fulfill the goal
exactly to the extent preset by the command, neither more nor less than that
(neither minimum nor maximum, but optimum) based on a principle “it is
necessary and sufficient”. Control elements watch the fulfillment of the
purpose and if the result exceeds the preset one, the control block would force
the executive elements to reduce the system’s function, whereas if it is lower
than the preset result it will force to increase the system’s function. The
purpose is dictated by conditions external with respect to the system. The
command is entered into the system through the special entry channel. All
consequences represent continuation of axioms, are stipulated by purposefulness
of systems, constructed under laws of hierarchy and limited by the conservation
law. The list of consequences could be continued, but those listed above are
quite sufficient for the evaluation of any system. Such evaluation applies to
both the properties of the system and its interaction with other systems.
Evaluation of the first consequence can be expressed in percentage, i.e. what
is the percentage of fulfillment (failure of fulfillment) of the goal/purpose.
The goal may be any due value. Other consequences may also be characterized
either qualitatively or quantitatively, which actually represents the system
evaluation, i.e. its diagnostics, systemic analysis. The system is
characterized by: the purpose/goal (determines designation of the system);
hierarchy (determines interrelations between all the elements of the system
without an exception); executive elements (SFU performing actions); control
block (watches the correctness of performance of actions for the achievement of
the goal). Any object, not only material, is also a system, provided it satisfies
the above listed axioms and their consequences. Groups of mathematical
equations, logic elements, social structures, relations between people,
intellectual/spiritual values, may also represent systems in which same
principles of functioning of systems work under the same logical laws. All of
them have a purpose, their own SFU and control blocks which watch the
implementation of the goal/purpose. If the object has a purpose it is a system.
And for the achievement of this purpose it should have corresponding executive
elements and control block with corresponding analyzers, DPC and NF (which
follows from the conservation law and the law of cause-and-effect limitations).
Systemic analysis examines the systems and their elements in a coordinated
fashion. The result of such analysis is the evaluation of correspondence of
results of actions of the systems with their purposes and revealing the causes
of the discrepancy for the account of determination of cause-and-effect
relations between the elements of systems. The major advantage of systemic
analysis is that only such an analysis allows establishing the causes of
insufficiency of systems. The purpose/goal determines both the elementary
structure of systems and interaction of its elements which is operated by the
control block. The interaction of executive elements (SFU) only is not
conducive to yielding stable result of action meeting the purpose preset for
the system. Addition to a system of the control block adjusted to the preset
purpose enables producing stable (constantly repeated) result of action of the
system meeting the preset goal. The norm is such condition of a system which
allows it to function and develop normally in the medium of existence which is
natural for the given type of systems and to yield reactions of such
qualitative and quantitative properties which allow the system to protect
its SFU from destruction. The notion of “norm” is relative with respect to
average state of the system in the given conditions. In case if conditions
alter, the system’s condition should change, too. Reaction is the action of the
system aimed at producing the result of action necessary for its survival in
response to external influence, i.e. the system’s function. Reaction is always
specific. Reaction may be: normal (normal reactivity), insufficient (hypo-reactivity),
excessive (hyper-reactivity), distorted (unexpected reaction occurs instead of
the expected one). Normal reactivity (normal reaction) means that functional
reserves of systems correspond to the force of external influence and the
operating possibilities of control block allow to adjust (control) SFU so that
the result of action precisely corresponds to the force of external influence.
Hypo-reactivity of the system (pathological reaction) arises in cases when
functional reserves of the given system of living organism are insufficient for
the given force of external influence. Hypo-reactivity is always a pathological
reaction. Hyper-reactivity of the system (normal or pathological reaction) is
the one where the result of action of the system exceeds the target. Distorted
reaction is a reaction of the system which mismatches its purpose. Pathology is
the lack of correspondence of the systems’ resources to usual norms. Pathology
includes other two important notions: pathological condition (defect) and
pathological process (including vicious circle). Restoration is active
influence on the system with a view to: liquidate or reduce excessive external
influences destroying the
Systemic Functional Units; liquidate or reduce destructive effects
of vicious circle if it has arisen; strengthen the function of the affected
(defective) subsystem, provided it does not lead to the activation of vicious
circle; strengthen the function of systems conjugated with the defective one,
provided it does not lead to strengthening the destructive effect of the
vicious circle associated with the affected system or the development of
vicious circles in other conjugated systems (does not lead to strengthening of
the “domino principle”); replace the destroyed SFU with the operational ones.
Any owner of the car knows that if something is broken in his/her car (as a
result of excessive external influence) and the defect turns up, the transportation
possibilities of its car sharply recede. If failing immediately repairing the
car, the breakages would accrue catastrophically (vicious circle) because the
domino principle will be activated. And to “cure” the car it is necessary to
protect it from excessive external influences and to liquidate the defects.

Mark A. Gaides
Hospitality named after Khaim Shiba, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Crisis. According
to Lewis Bornhaim, crisis is a situation where the
totality of circumstances which were earlier quite acceptable, all of a sudden,
due to the emergence of some new factor, becomes absolutely unacceptable, at
that it’s almost inessential, whether the new factor is political, economic or
scientific: death of a national hero, price fluctuations, new technological
discovery; any circumstance may serve impetus for further events (“the
butterfly effect”: the butterfly’s wing  at the right place and time may cause a
hurricane). A well-known scientist Alfred Pokran devoted a
special work to crises (“Culture, crises and changes”) and arrived at
interesting conclusions. First, he notes that any crisis arises long before it
factually comes on the scene. For example, Einstein has published fundamentals
of relativity theory in 1905-1915, i.e. forty years before his works have
ultimately led to the beginning of a new epoch and emergence of crisis. Pokran
also notes that every crisis implies the involvement of a great number of
individuals and characters, all of them being unique: “It is difficult to
imagine Alexander the Great in front of Rubicon or Eisenhower in the field of
Waterloo; it is just as difficult to imagine Darwin writing a letter to
Roosevelt about potential dangers associated with nuclear bomb. Crisis is the
sum of blunders, confusions and intuitive flashes of inspiration, a totality of
observed and unobserved factors (which in systemic analysis is called a
“bifurcation point”), an unstable condition of a system that may result in a
number of outcomes: recovery of stable level, transition to other steady equilibrium state
characterized by new energy-and-informational level, or leap to a
higher unstable level. At a bifurcation point a nonlinear system becomes very
sensitive to small influences or fluctuations: indefinitely small influences
may cause indefinitely wide variation of the condition of the system and its
dynamics. Originality of any crisis hides its striking similarity with other
crises. The unique feature of one and all /most and least/ crises is the
possibility of prevision thereof in retrospect and irreversibility of
solutions; characteristic frequencies of control processes sharply increase (a
time trouble condition, shortage of time).

Power. Power is any
possibility, whatever it is based on, to realize one’s own will in the given
social relations, even notwithstanding counteraction. The power is also
characterized as steady ability of achievement of the goals set with the
support of other people. The concept of power is “sociologically amorphous”,
i.e. the exercise of power does not imply the presence of any special human
qualities (strength, intellect, beauty, etc.) or any special circumstances
(confrontation, conflict, etc.). Any possible qualities and circumstances can
serve for realization of will. These may include direct violence or threats,
prestige or charm, any peculiarities of situation or institutional status, etc.
An individual having a lot of money, holding senior position or being simply
more charming person, the one who is able to use better than others the
circumstances that turned up — that person, as a rule, would be the one having
more power. For characterization of dictatorial/imperious capacity the concept
of supremacy/domination is also used. Domination/supremacy implies the
probability that the command of certain content will induce obedience in those
to whom it is addressed. Domination/supremacy is a stronger notion than power.
Domination is legitimate and institutionalized power, i.e. it is such a power
which invokes the will to subordinate and fulfill the orders and instructions
and which, at that, exists in a sustainable format accepted both by those
dominating and dependent. With regard to the latter it is conventional to talk
about domination structures. Such legitimate and institutionalized power is the
state power. It is very important to distinguish the power from domination. For
example, the person who is taken a hostage is under the authority of gunmen,
but one can not say that they dominate over him/her. They force the hostage to
obey by direct physical violence. But he/she does not want to obey and does not
agree to recognize their right to dominate over him/her.

Elite. Elite is a
group of individuals standing high in the ranks of power or prestige, which,
thanks to their socially significant qualities (origin, wealth, some
achievements), hold the highest positions in various spheres or sectors of
public life. The influence of these people is so great that they affect not
only the processes inside the spheres or sectors to which they belong, but also
the social life as a whole. There are three basic classes of elite:
authoritative/power-holding, valuе-associated and functional.
Authoritative/power-holding elites are more or less closed groups having
specific qualities, and “imperious” privileges. These are the “ruling classes”
— political, military or bureaucratic. Value-associated elites are creative
groups exerting special influence on the setup of minds and opinions of the
broad mass. They are philosophers, scientific-research expert community,
intelligentsia in the widest sense of this word. Functional elites are influential groups which
in the course of competition stand out from the crowd in different spheres or
sectors of society and undertake important functions in the society. These are
rather open groups, accession to which requires the presence of certain
achievements, for example holding managerial positions.

Group. Collective
administrative actions differ from those individual in a variety of parameters.
Thus, the group is more productive in generation of the most efficient and
well-grounded ideas, comprehensive evaluation of one or other decisions or
their projects, achievement of individual and team objectives. The basic drawback
of the team decision-making is that it is more inclined to undertake higher
risk. This phenomenon is explained in different ways: conformist pressure which
manifests itself in that some team members do not dare express their opinions
that vary from those stated before, especially the
opinions of team leaders and the majority of team members, and criticize them;
a feeling of reappraisal, overestimation of their possibilities which develops
during intensive group communication (overrated feeling of “us” that weakens
the perception of risk); mutual “contagion of courage”. This effect arises in
group communications; in case of widespread notion (usually erroneous) that in
group decisions responsibility rests with many people and the share of personal
responsibility is rather insignificant (group failures are usually less
evident/appreciable and are not perceived as sharply as individual’s failures);
influence of leaders, especially formal heads whose vision of their main
functions consists in indispensable  inculcation of optimism and confidence in
the achievement of the purpose. The symptoms of the “group thinking” and group pressure as a whole
are: illusion of invulnerability of the group. Group members are inclined to
overestimation of correctness of their actions and quite often perceive risky
decisions optimistically; unbounded belief in moral righteousness of group
actions. Group members are convinced of moral irreproachability of their
collective behavior and uselessness of critical evaluations by independent
observers (“the collective is always right”); screening of disagreeable or
unwanted information. Data out of keeping with the group opinions are not taken
into consideration and cautions are not taken into account either. Resulting
from it is ignoring off necessary changes; negative stereotypification of the
outsiders. The purposes, opinions and achievements of
associations external in relation to the given group tendentiously treated as
weak, hostile, suspicious, etc. Quite often “narrow departmental interests
/localistic tendencies/” and “clannishness” and self-censorship arise
thereupon. Separate group members because of fears of disturbance of the group
harmony abstain from expression of alternative points of view and their own
interests; illusion of constant unanimity. Because of self-censorship and
perception of silence as a sign of consent external consensus is achieved very
quickly without comprehensive discussion and approval when making decisions on
the problems. In this situation internal dissatisfaction is being accumulated
which may further lead to conflict which may arise because of formal
insignificant ground; social (group) pressure on those who disagree. The
requirement of conformist behavior, as a rule, leads to intolerance with
respect to critical, disloyal (from the view point of the group) statements and
actions and to “gag” the bearers thereof; restriction or reduction of
possibilities of the outsiders’ participation in the formation of collective
opinion and decision-making. Separate group members seek not to give the chance
of participation in the group affairs to the people who do not belong to it, as
they apprehend that it (including the information coming from them) will break
the unity of the group.

Rational-universal
method of decision-making implies an unambiguous definition of the substance of
a problem and ways of its solution. Its basic advantage consists in that when
realized it allows complete and radical solving the problem or a preset task.
Branch method implies taking partial decisions  directed towards the
improvement of situation, rather than complete solution of a problem (for
example, under conditions of insufficient clarity of a problem, ways and means
of its solution, in the absence of full information on the situation, given the
lack of possibility to foresee all the consequences of the radical solution,
under the pressure of the influential forces inducing to compromises, the
possibility of rise of sharp conflicts with unclear outcome, etc.). Mixed
(mixed-scanning) method implies rational analysis of the problem and singling
out of its main, key component which is attached a paramount importance and to
which rational-universal method is applied. Other elements of the problem are
solved gradually by making acceptable partial decisions that allows to focus
efforts and resources on the key areas and at the same time have complete
control over other elements of the situation, thus providing its stability.

Selection/choice
mechanism. The optimal selection mechanism may be considered the
consensus-based system in which each participant of decision-making votes not
for one, but for all options (preferably more than two) and ranges the list of
options in the order of his/her own preferences. Thus, if four possible options
are offered the participant of decision-making (the voter) defines a place of
each of them. The first place is given 4 points, the second, third and forth
are given 3, 2 and 1 points, respectively. After voting the points given too
each option (the candidacy/nominee) are summed up and selected option is
determined based on the quantity thereof. If sums of scores for any options are
found equal, repeated voting is held only for these options.

Networks. Network is determined as
spatial, constantly changing dynamical system consisting of elements
identical in terms of some parameters:  actors (figures), activity and
resources (key for this type of a network), connected among themselves by
communication flows. The network structure is the description of boundaries of
interrelations between the elements and position of elements in the network. The
actors, activity and resources are connected with each other across the entire
structure of network. The actors develop and maintain relations with each
other. Various kinds of activity are also connected among themselves by
relations, which may be called a network. Resources are consolidated among
themselves by the same structure of network, and moreover, all the three
networks are closely interconnected and represent a global network. Actors,
activity and resources form the system in which heterogeneous (diverse) needs
coalesce with heterogeneous offers. In that way they are functionally connected
with each other. Even in case of destruction of considerable part of network,
the functions of the latter as a system will not be harmed, as they will pass
to other cells of the network (partially  their resources as well). In an ideal
network there is no uniform control (coordinating) centre, there is only
“floating” centre (centers) functioning at each specific moment and its
functions may be usually performed by any cell of the network.

So, we have
examined separate aspects of stimulation of scientific thinking. All the
studied materials require the development of skills for their practical
application. See in addition: Alvin Toffler “Shock of the Future”,
“Metamorphoses of Power”, “The Third Wave”. Francis Fukuyama. Our Posthuman
Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. 272 pp.), “The End of
History and the Last Human”. (Samuel Huntington). "Think tanks" Paul
Dickson, 1971.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *