The manager as a teacher: selected aspects of stimulation of scientsfsc thinking

The manager as a teacher: selected aspects of stimulation of scientsfsc 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

 

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.

The principle of goal-setting. A
car is intended for transportation, a calculator – for calculations, a
lantern – for illumination, etc. But the goal of transportation is needed not for
the car but for someone or something external with respect to it. The car only
needs its ability to implement the function in order to achieve this goal. The goal
is to meet the need of something external in something, and this system only implements
the goal while serving this external “something”. Hence, the goal for a system
is set from the outside, and the only thing required from the system is the ability
to implement this goal. This external “something” is another system or systems,
because the World is tamped only with systems. Goal-setting always excludes independent
choice of the goal by the system. The goal can be set to the system as the
order/command and directive. There is a difference between these concepts. The
order/command is a rigid instruction, it requires execution of just “IT” with
the preset accuracy and only “IN THAT MANNER” and not in
any other way, i.e. the system is not given the “right” to choose actions for
the achievement of the goal and all its actions are strictly defined. Directive
is a milder concept, whereby the “IT” is set only the given or approximate
accuracy, but the right to choose actions is given to the system itself. Directive
can be set only to systems with well developed management unit/control block which
can make choice of necessary actions by itself. None of the
systems does possess free will and can set the goal before itself;
it comes to it from the outside. But are there any systems which are
self-sufficient and set the goals before themselves? For example, we, the people,
are sort of able of setting goals before ourselves and carry them out. Well
then, are we the example of independent systems? But it is
not as simple as it may seem. There is a dualism (dual nature) of one and the same
concept of goal: the goal as the task for some system and the goal as an aspiration
(desire) of this system to execute the goal set before
it: the Goal is a task representing the need of external operating system
(super system) to achieve certain predetermined result; the Goal is an
aspiration (desire) to achieve certain result of performance of the given
system always equal to the preset result (preset by order or directive).
The fundamental point is that one super system cannot set the goal before the
system (subsystem) of other super system. It can set the goal only before this super
system which becomes a subsystem in respect of the latter. We can set the goal
before ourselves, but we always set the goal only when we are missing/lacking
something, when we suffer. Suffering is an unachieved desire. Any physiological
(hunger, thirst), aesthetic and other unachieved desires makes us suffer and
suffering forces us to aspire to act until desires are satisfied. The depth of
suffering is always equal to the intensity of desire. We want to eat and we
suffer from hunger until we satisfy this desire. As soon as we take some food,
the suffering ceases immediately. At that, the new desire arises according to
“Maslow pyramid”. Desire is our goal-aspiration. When we realize our wish we
achieve the objective/goal. If we achieve the objective we cease to act,
because the goal is achieved and the wish disappears. If we have everything we
can only think of, we will not set any goals before ourselves, because there is
nothing to wish, since we have everything. Therefore, even a human being with
all its complexity and developmental evolution cannot be absolutely independent
of other systems (of external environment). Our goals-tasks are always set
before us by the external environment and it incites our desire (goal-aspiration)
which is dictated by shortage of something. We are free to choose our actions to
achieve the goal, but it is at this point where we are limited by our
possibilities. We do not set the goal-task, we set the goals-aspirations.
Then if it is not us, can there be other systems which can set goals before
themselves regardless of whatsoever? Perhaps, starting from any certain level
of complication the systems can do it themselves? Such
examples are unknown to us. For any however large and difficult system there might
be another, even higher system found which will dictate the
former its goals and conditions. Nature is integrated and almost put in (good)
order. It is “almost” put in order, because at the level of quantum
phenomena there is probably some uncertainty and unpredictability, i.e. unconformity
of the phenomena to our knowledge of physical laws (for example, tunnel
effects). It is this unpredictability which is the cause of contingencies and
unpredictability. Contingency /stochasticity and purposefulness are mutually
exclusive.

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).

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.

Active and passive systems.
Passive systems are those which do not exspend energy for their actions. Active
systems are those which do exspend energy for their actions. However, as it was
repeatedly underlined, any action of any system requires expenditure of energy.
Any action, even the most insignificant, is impossible without expenditure of
energy, because, as it has already been mentioned, any action is always the
interaction between systems or its elements. Any interaction represents
communication between the systems or their elements which requires expenditure
of energy for the creation thereof. Therefore any action requires energy
consumption. Hence, all systems, including passive, consume energy. The
difference between active and passive systems is only in the source of energy.
How does the passive system operate then? If the system is in the state of
equilibrium with the environment and no influence is exerted upon it the system
should not perform any actions. Once it does not perform any actions, it does
not consume energy. It is passive until the moment it starts to operate and
only then it will start to consume energy. The balanced state of a
pencil is stipulated by the balanced pushing (pressure) of springs onto a
pencil. The springs are not simply incidental groups of elements (a set of
atoms and molecules), but they are passive systems with NF loops and executive
elements at molecular level (intermolecular forces in steel springs) which seek
to balance forces of intermolecular connections/bonds which is manifested in
the form of tension load of the springs. Since in case of the absence of
external influence no actions are performed by the system, there is no energy
consumption either, and the system passively waits for the onset of external
influence. Both types of systems have one and the same goal: to keep a pencil
in vertical position. In passive systems this function is carried out by
springs (passive SFU, A and B) and air columns encapsulated/encased in rubber
cans (passive SFU, D). The SFU store (use) energy during external influence
(pushing a pencil with a finger squeezes the springs). In active system (C) the
same function is achieved for at the expense of airflows which always collapse.
These airflows create motor fans (active SFU) which spend energy earlier
reserved, for example, in accumulators. Once these airflows are
encapsulated/encased in rubber cylinders they will not collapse any more and
will exist irrespective of fans, while carrying out the same function. But now
it represents a passive system (D). Now external influence occurs and the
pencil has diverged aside. The springs would immediately seek to return a
pencil to the former position, i.e. the system starts to operate. Where does it
take energy for the actions from? This energy was brought by the external
influence in the form of kinetic energy of pushing by a finger which has
compressed (stretched) the springs and they have reserved this energy in the
form of potential energy of compression (stretching). As soon as external
influence (pushing by a finger) has ceased, potential energy of the compressed
springs turns to kinetic energy of straightening thereof and it returns a
pencil back in the vertical balanced position. External influence enhances internal
energy of the system which is used for the performance of the system. The
influence causes surplus of internal energy of the system which results in the
reciprocal action of the system. In the absence of influence no surplus of the
system’s internal energy is available which results in the absence of action.
External influence brings in the energy in the system which is used to produce
reaction to this influence. Functions of springs may be performed by airflows
created by fans located on a pencil. In order to “build” airflows surplus of
energy of the “fans – pencil” system is used which is also brought in from the
outside, but stored for use at the right time (for example, gasoline in the
tank or electricity in accumulator). Such system would be active because it
will use its internal energy, rather than that of external influence. The
difference between airflows and springs consists in that the airflows consist
of incidental groups of molecules of air (not systems) moving in one direction.
Amongst these elements there are executive elements (SFU, air molecules), but
there is no control block which could construct a springs-type system out of
them, i.e. provide the existence of airflows as stable, separate and
independent bodies (systems). These airflows are continually created by fan
propellers and as they have no control block of their own they always collapse
by themselves. Suppose that we construct some kind of a system which will
ensure prevention of the airflows from collapse, let’s say, encase them in
rubber cylinders, they then may exist independently of fans. But in this case
the system of stabilization of the pencil’s vertical position will shift from
the active category to the passive. Hence, both active and passive systems
consume energy. However, the passive ones consume the external energy brought
in by external influence, while the active ones would use their own internal
energy. One may argue that internal energy, say, of myocyte is still the
external energy brought in to a cell from the outside, e.g. in the form of
glucose. It is true, and moreover, any object contains internal energy which at
some stage was external. And we probably may even know the source of this
energy, which is the energy of the Big Bang. Some kind of energy was spent once
and somewhere for the creation of an atom, and this energy may be extracted
therefrom somehow or other. Such brought-in internal energy is present in any
object of our World and it is impossible to find any other object in it which
would contain exclusively its own internal energy which was not brought in by
anything or ever from the outside. Energy exchange occurs every time the
systems interact. But passive systems do not spend their internal energy in the
process of their performance because they “are not able” of doing it, they only
use the energy of the external influence, whereas active systems can spend
their internal energy. The passive system is the thorax
which performs passive exhalation and many other systems of living organism.

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.

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.

Discrecity (“quantal capacity”)
of the system’s functions. The system’s actions are always discrete (quantized)
as any of its SFU work under the “all-or-none” law. There exists no smooth
change of the system’s function, but there always exists phased (quantized)
transition from one level of function to another, since executive elements
actuate or deactivate regular SFU depending on the requirements of
system. Transition of systems from one level of functions to another is always
effected by way of a leap. We do not always observe this gradation/graduality
because of the fact that the amplitude of the result of action of individual
SFU can be very small, but still it is always there. The amplitude of these
steps of transition from one level to another determines the maximum accuracy
of the result of action of systems and is stipulated by the amplitude of the
result of action of individual SFU (quantum of action). Probably, elementary
particles are the most minimal SFU in our World and consequently indivisible
into smaller parts subjected to laws of physics of our World.

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.

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 *