(75 in all)
I'd be interested to hear how you react to the idea that mind is just 'computation' in AI terms - compared to Penrose's idea that it is fundamentally non-computable and perhaps quantum at a microtubule level.
ANS
AI terms are quickly developing area ... It seems for me that mind is the authorealisation of integral algorithm of biological life on the base of integral totality of human brains. The algorithm was as the physical principle of the nature before arising AL as the discipline. One and the same algorithm moved from biorealisation to sociorealisation and now is moving to technorealization as AI=AL. From one element base to another and to another. The functional scheme of the algorithm is the theme of my AL papers.
I do not think that mind is non-computable. I believe it is computable, but such computation must emulate an INTEGRAL multidimensional self-organisation of structures or of ideas (which are the informational structures). My theory is the theory of such integral multidimensional dynamics. I hope it will be of principle needs for building of an artificial brain - for example for the ATR's "CAM-Brain Project" of Hugo deGaris.
If the algorithm is the sum total of the brain, that makes it extremely complicated - beyond our comprehension I'd say.
ANS
It is not the sum - it is on the base of the sum of the brains in general sense (as the mind in narrow, isolated case is not the brain but it is realisation of the intelligence of one of people on the brain of one of people). In the same general, all-culture sense mind is a creative selfrealisation of an integral reflection of activity of men. Simple rough example: A worm in an apple is not an apple, but it is some autoactivity on the base of an apple.
The thinking about the mind as about soft and/or hardware of the real biological brain is dead-end siding for understanding of the mind and it is too complicated and beyond our comprehension of course. The only one way of simple understanding of complexity today is thinking not about the complexity of an element base of the brain, not about a matter constructions (biological hardware) of the brain, not about electrical processes in the brain, but about simplicity of an abstract functional scheme of the brain which is one and the same and for mind and for life in general.
Simple example: A deep investigations of structure of bonds may be useful, but cannot be enough for understanding of fundamental economic laws.
From what I have seem however the brain seems more modular than integral, we seem to have many separate modules operating in parallel (unconsciously) with minimal communication.
ANS
Integral does not means simultaneous or "synchronously controlled from one source in all details". Every separate module (cell or brain structure) have a specific task and do it autonomously (if it is possible) and it is very good for integrity, for general organisation and functioning of the brain. But the brain in general is highly integrated in structure and in the function. There are many mechanisms and structures for integration of all structures of the brain. Operating in parallel (unconsciously) with minimal communication does not means unorganised or functionally incoherent and adequate. There is no need for communication to be big - it must be only enough for control, reproduction and creation.
Is your (simple?)algorithm approach adequate to cope with innovation for example, the emergence of novelty - which our computers seem unable to do ?
ANS
Yes it is. Algorithm of emergence of novelty = algorithm of creation. One of the main results of my work is understanding of algorithm of creation (SEE "creation").
I assume then that you take a functional view of mind, the 'black box' approach where the biological hardware is just an arbitrary implementation.
ANS
The task of AI is technical realisation of a functional scheme of mind. The way "biological hardware of mind -> technical hardware of mind" is too complicated and may be impossible today - as I understand. More possible is: biological hardware of mind -> general functional scheme of mind -> technical hardware of mind. But the step "biological hardware of mind -> general functional scheme of mind" is not the task for experimental research only. A principle need is free reflection for invention of abstract theory which cannot be found in experiments on brain or in computer experiments on concrete-theoretical models. Experimental facts about biological hardware may be useful here but are not enough.
Q 6
Yet the research on cell structure seems to indicate that the cell itself is highly complex computationally, we may need to add a new lower level of function also it seems ?
ANS
Look (the metaphoric examples for understanding of lower levels of functional
schemes of the cell and others functional
intraclosures):
| cycles
of
catalysis |
cycles of autocatalysis | hypercycles | functional intraclocure | |
| A | macromolecules | complexes of macromolecules | subcell structures | cell |
| B | cells | tissues | organs | organism |
| C | personnel | groups | departments (sections) | institute |
| D | institutes | branches | ministries (boards) | state |
| E | the empirical descriptions | the particular theories | the partially generalised theories | the integrally generalised theory |
On the levels A,B,C,D and E functional algorithm of subordination is one and the same. It needs to say, that the mind is the function of the organism as the whole and not only the function of the brain.
Q7
"The law of organisation of integral structure and the structure symmetry is one and the same. The structure symmetry is the most high automorphism group of the structure ".
Could you clarify this ? 'low of organisation of integral structure' not understood.
ANS
The history of theoretical crystallography is the history of attempts to find a common theoretical description (law of organisation) of integral structure of crystals resulted in this assertion. Please look any book on history of crystallography or on the general theory of symmetry.
Q 8
Are you implying that higher level structures (social for example) fix energy in the same way as say cells do ?
ANS
Yes of course, - fixation of energy is and the same ('sugar', organic matter) and new (electricity, gas, oil...), but more effective in principle - social organisation rise a specific power of an energy fixation (per mass of individual, per capita).
Q 9
"In consequence, there is some easiness of their interaction up to the possibility of a reciprocal transformation. "
Don't follow this sentence. Previous sentence seems to claim a topological identity between structures at different levels, which sounds fine - but how does this follow (and what do you mean exactly ) ?
ANS
Ex: interactions sugar<->fats in biological structures, transformations sugar->fat, fat->sugar, ...) The IDENTITY of functional scheme , but not of the matter construction structures at different (for example molecular-social) levels and in addition, - identity of an element base of the matter construction of structures of sublevels of one level of organisation (for ex organic molecules-macromolecules- organoids- cell of the cell level of organisation). Exx:
1. Lets take sublevels of multicellular organism: molecules, cells, tissue, organs. The tail of a tadpole may be transformed in any part of a frog during development. Any cell may be destroyed and transformed in any cell in an organism.
2. A generalised functional scheme of cell, multicell organism, organisation - juridical person, country, biosphere, autonomous robot, life in general is one and the same. We cannot do transformations cell->robot or organisation-juridical person->biosphere on matter level.
"The environment is assumed to afford some interval of conditions for realisation of optimal kinetic stability of structures of the living".
Do you mean a range of parameters for which the result is stable (perhaps an attractor basin) or just an appropriate external energy flow rate ?
ANS
What do you think - why a frog cannot be alive on the sun? Why for self-organisation of plasma a high temperature is of needs?
Attractor is a mathematical object - and may be useful for mathematical describing of a frog love for the warm puddle but we can use the simple notion 'an area of conditions of a physical (or functional) stability of the object'.
" 3. Endergonic structures of the set M possess such a vast structural variety (polymorphism), that they are capable of establishing ten pairs of simple mutually opposite functional relations between each other, i.e. between their constituents and the environment (set R) (SEE Table 1)".
This seems the wrong way round, the variety comes from the interaction possibilities between the relations.
ANS
Why are you doing '=' between relations and structural polymorphism?
In this paper I am concentrating on the invariant functional structures of a systems. The "structural polymorphism" here means polymorphism of a matter structure but not of a functional structure. Not between relations but between organic systems which are not relations only. The set M is the set of systems ( structures + systems elements) but we may tell about the systems looking on their structures and keeping in mind "they are the systems".
In the previous paper versions here was 'organic systems' and not 'organic structures'.
In this versions of the paper I am trying to write mathematically and here is the physical misunderstanding. In any case I shall try to clear the problem (to clear the using of the notions 'structure' and 'system').
Q 12
Where do the 10 pairs of the
operations in set R come from - are they your axioms ?
How
the set R and groupoid G were formulated?
ANS
The 10 pairs operations may be considered as part of axioms of my theory. Being the biologist and trying to follow traditions general theory of systems and cybernetics, I have found one interesting analogy. All alive organisms have substantially similar functional organization - all of them have informational, energy, impellent, bearing, excretory and number of other systems. I had such feeling, that there is a certain functional invariant, which in a main part remains same for any alive organisms - both one-celled and multicellular. Moreover, the rather standalone social systems (especially so-called juridical persons) are obviously organized in according to the same common functional invariant. In all these cases a base elements and entirety of realization of a complete matrix of the generalized functional invariant in essence differs only. It was very interesting. The similarity of the general functional organization was obvious and for various languages. It is possible to say, that in a basis of the language the communicational reflection of the same generalized - functional invariant lays. Languages differ by elements (by words) and by grammars, but functionally they are invariant and identical each other. The functional invariance of languages provide the possibility of their mutual translation. By which way it would be possible to formulate a required functional invariant? Originally I have made the list of the all possible functions, known for me as realized in alive, - since listing functions of separate organs and systems of organisms. Then to this list I have added all main verbs designating the most elementary and irreducible to each other functional mutual relations. The main types of the functional operations realized in biochemical processes were taken into account also. Further all synonyms were reduced to sole values, and all other synonymic variants were discarded. The obviously composite functions were discarded also. Only the most elementary and unique functions were left. Thus list from ten pairs of the mutually antipodal elementary functions (operations with substance, energy and information) - the set R was obtained. The combinations of these elementary functions will derivate more complex functions up to highest integrating functions - such, as control, reproduction and creation. Any alive organism realizes all elementary functions of set R and integrating function of control. The function of reproduction is realized by many organisms. The function of creation in the individual order is realized in the full volume only by man. In case of organisms of lower level of organization than man the function of creation is realized as natural selection on level of population, but not on an individual level. The positive result of solution of the set task of a statement of the functional invariant of organization was achieved by me due to the following initial sending: the invariant of the functional organization should be mathematical group (or groupoid) - from here directed search of mutually antipodal elementary operations.
Q 13
Do you claim that this set of 10 and their inverses are the only operations anyone could come up with (i.e. the complete set) in the context of life processes ?
ANS
Yes I do, but they are 'elementary' operations combinations of which generate 'integrational' operations. Integrational operations are: control, reproduction and creation (there are additional operations 'discovery' and 'love' in the context of 'creation' ).
"Operations R generate the mathematical groupoid G over all possible combinations. The proofs are:"
My maths isn't too good, but the 4 points then listed don't seem to 'prove' anything, at least not in the sense of why they are 'complete'. Has 'groupoid' a technical meaning here ?
ANS
4 points demonstrate the presence of all of the 4 properties of the mathematical group. The demonstration is the proof of assertion "Operations R generate the mathematical group G". 'Groupoid' is more weak mathematical assertion than 'group'.
Q 15
"1. The static ones. For instance, organic molecules (including macromolecules) and their crystals".
Fixed in time, equilibrium positions ?
ANS
fixed in time thermodynamically instable (nonequilibrium) and kinetically equilibrium positions
Q 16
"2. The informationally unmediated stationary structures. They are dynamic structures existing due to an informationally unmediated return to the initial position (state, form). For example, dissipative autocatalitic structures of the Beloussov - Zhabotinsky reaction type [8], whirlwinds, rivers (permanent stations based on the water circulation)..."
Standing waves ?
ANS And the standing waves the same, but 'The informationally unmediated stationary structures' are exactly: "a classical dissipative structures".
"3. The informationally mediated stationary structures. They are dynamic structures existing due to an informationally mediated return to the initial position (state, form). The kinds of such automorphic processes are: reproduction, adaptive behaviour, recovery (regeneration, repair). "
Adaptive ? Not quite sure what you mean by 'informationally unmediated' and 'informationally mediated' here, can you elaborate a little ?
ANS
Simple answers:
'informationally unmediated stationary structures' - a lifeless stationary structures
'informationally mediated stationary structures' - only an alive and a technical stationary structures.
" As it is seen from the points listed, any structure of order can be characterised by its specific group of symmetry."
Are you saying the three types have different symmetry groups here ? Subgroupoids of groupoid G ?
ANS
Yes, of course. There are no any other structures which are not characterised by any of subgroupoids of the groupoid G or by combinations of them. It is a little funny, but the groupoid G is the most general groupoid of all possible - of all possible and in physics and in mathematics and not only in biology.
" In the microapproach we use the notion "space of possible behavioural forms of the substructure (microstructure) of the first below-lying level of structure organisation"".
Do you mean here the set of possible micro forms that all lead to the same macro behaviour ?
ANS
I think no, but the question is not clear enough for me. Why is it "to the same macro behaviour"? And to the same and to different (but definite).
" - (1) free energy of the macrostructure (its capability of doing some work) decreases;
- (2) entropy of the macrostructure increases;
- (3) symmetry of the macrostructure increases. "
These restrictions seems to me to exclude life ! It can be shown that entropy decreases within the macro system , symmetry decreases also often and energy storage (increasing free energy) takes place. Those criteria may apply to the combined macro system and environment of course, but is this what you mean here ?
ANS
The decreasing of an entropy m of the macrocrosystems is impossible according a physical laws. Try to identify - how you mean 'macro system', please. I think 'macrosystem' include environment because it is isolated for microsystems. Any isolated macrosystem is an universe. Any universe is isolated. Please give me an example of a spontaneous decreasing of symmetry of macrosystem - I dot know. There are no any microsystems without environment.
" Symmetry of the structure is characterised by an at most high group of transformations, which leave the structure unchanged. "Most high" mean "including all possible transformations""
But if 'all possible transformations' leave the structure unchanged then what is left ? How can it evolve, operate or be alive ?
ANS
For any forms of life "to sustain their structures unchanged" means "to be alive". Metabolism is the way of keeping structures of the living unchanged from one side and the way of development from the other. Development is a sort of a morphological authoreflection of structures and the sense of the authoreflection is maintaining of a structure of organisms and maintaining of the life. An evolution is the most effective way to keep a sustention of life. The groupoid G transformations of structures of the set M are the essence of life. And the Evolution of our Universe is the process of generation of the Groupoid G on the set of all structures of our Universe.
"To keep structure unchanged" means here "to maintain the general structure of the body".
Is it of needs for you to change you structure during the walking? Is it of needs for a motor car or for a rocket to change it's structure during the moving? Yes of course, but only as insignificant REVERSIBLE changes. Lets read my paper: "Symmetry of the structure is characterised by an at most high group of transformations, which leave the structure unchanged. "Most high" mean "including all possible transformations". Group is the sum total of a changes which leave the structure unchanged. What is about the abstract functional structure "the moving"?
Q 22
" As for entropy, the matter is more difficult. In this work complete entropy of the isolated structure of order is defined as a volume of the space of possible transitional structures of order on their way to equilibrium".
On their way to equilibrium ? But we are talking here about life, a non-equilibrium process.
ANS
The life is process of catalysis of the moving of an universe to equilibrium by an organisational way. Any evolution may be only as the moving to equilibrium. Any self-organisation may be only the moving to equilibrium. Any moving at all may be only the moving to equilibrium. Life is organisational engine of moving of universe to equilibrium but any engine may be only non-equilibrium of course.
Q 23
"The author believe that the conception about space of possible transitional structures of order could be defined as a space of possible transitional groups of the structure symmetry. Hence it appears that complete entropy of the structure is an extensive characteristic of its potential (evolutionary achievable) symmetry, which seems to be rather paradoxical. "
Let me say what I think your ideas imply, and you can correct me. A system can change in various ways by combinations of allowed transformations between the parts. The sum total of these allowed states is its possible dynamic structure in state space. These will not occupy all possible(ergodic) positions in state space, so the entropy will not be the maximum possible for an equivalent equilibrium system.
ANS
Not transformations between parts as in the case of "space of possible behavioural forms of the substructure (microstructure)", but "space of possible transitional structures of order of macrostructure" which could be defined as a space of possible transitional groups of the structure symmetry.
Here are some great difficulties. The ergodic theorem possibly cannot be used here - you are right of coarse. But life is not a gas and procedures of intermixing and averaging possibly cannot be used here. I want to say that entropy is not the exclusive property of a probabilistic approach and I try to use a geometric and algebraic understanding of entropy and life. I must say that generalised understanding of entropy as and of information are the open questions for recent science. The local and particular using on the off-chance of the words "entropy" or "information" for some formulations is not the decision of the problem. You know, I think, that Shannon's theory of a signals transmission [Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver: 1949, "The Mathematical Theory of Commutation", (1963) Edition, University of Illinois Press] is not a theory of information.
"It is most correct to use the formulated extreme principles locally, as a criterion for choosing the direction of spontaneous processes at each concrete point of evolution, but not "on the whole". "
Sorry, I don't follow what you mean here ?
ANS
Thinking about a selforganisation of some local situation (concrete point of evolution) in the context we must do the mental procedure of isolation of the situation - we must do procedure of the mental constructing of "the universe". We can use the formulated extreme principles looking on this "universe" as on macrosystem. In this case we may understand what is the universe and may describe it's symmetry. But without such procedure we cannot do it. We don't know what is a real universe "in the whole"
"Spontaneous formation of these complexes occur in such a way that the combinations, satisfying the formulated extreme principles, are realised "
What are these 'extreme principles' again ?
ANS
They are:
- (1) free energy of the macrostructure (its capability of doing some work) decreases;
- (2) entropy of the macrostructure increases;
- (3) symmetry of the macrostructure increases.
Q 26
"So, each step within self-organisation means an increase of specific contribution of new-emerging structures to realisation of the formulated extreme principles, in particular the specific power and/or specific symmetry of the structure continuously increase. "
Not sure this follows. I agree we have a open ended system that can grow (operations 5,6,7 etc.), but it can also shrink (with inverses). On balance we would expect it to stabilise - so why do you claim it increases continually ?
ANS
The operations by itself are not a matter of spontaneous choice according the 'extreme principles', but changes in free energy or in symmetry are.
look: A spontaneous behaviour of microstructures within an isolated macrostructure is only "physically permitted" when:
- (1) free energy of the macrostructure (its capability of doing some work) decreases;
- (2) entropy of the macrostructure increases;
- (3) symmetry of the macrostructure increases.
What is the choice between a possible microstructures according (1) and (2)? It is the choice of the microstructure with the most possible specific power.
What is the choice between a possible microstructures according (3)? It is the choice of the microstructure with the most possible specific symmetry.
Q 27
"the mass of the structure is the divisor of the product of its power on its symmetry)"
Hard to follow, can you give an example to try to clarify what you are doing mathematically here ?
ANS
Let S be level of symmetry, P be power and m be mass, then our integral criterion of the evolutionary direction is arising of
(P x S):m or P x S/m or P multiply by S and divide by m
The evolution of cars is a continuous increasing of their specific power and/or specific symmetry. Is it right? The same was and during the biological evolution. It is the main reason of dying out of the dinosaurs - the choice of mammals was of automatic preference. The evolution of computers is a further clear example.
Q 28
"Direction of evolution is defined as correspondence with this criterion. This criterion is one and the same for direction of evolution and for direction of progress".
Has evolution a direction ? The algae don't seem to have changed for a billion years or so, max. size has gone down since the dinosaurs, our intelligence seems to have increased - but 'progress' seems very Homo centred here!
ANS
Why "Homo centered"? In the case of algae there are no any concurrents in this biological niche - it is the case of the utmost perfection of such structures of the life..
And I think that algae have had no chance to be clever as we are (their energetics and general organisation are too poor) - and we are not the concurrents for the biological niche of algae (at least today :-). And may be more - the algae are among the contributors of our oxygen and some of them are the agricultural crops - we are coevolve together. And evolution has the direction of course and progress is not Homo centred because the spontaneous evolution of Homo sapience is over now. Today the main directions of evolution are the evolution of robots including others AI systems and artificial evolution of Homo on the base of our knowledge about the ourselves. I believe that a technique is a part of Life. I may suppose that a real artificial evolution of Homo will begin after appearance of a real AI. The last may be the base for making decisions about directions of artificial evolution of Homo.
"1) emergence of elementary cycles of catalysis; "
Are these cycles or just reactions, if former what is difference with the autocatalysis in 2) ?
ANS
Autocatalysis is such cycle of cycles of catalysis which reproduce (duplicate) the initial catalyst-participator.
Catalysis is principally more simple cycle 1->2->3 : 1)catalyst + substrate -> 2) catalyst-substrate -> 3) catalyst + product. The cycle of catalysis is return of the catalyst to initial state after the act of catalysis. It is not the duplication of catalyst, - it is the reversion of it to the initial state.
Q 30
" 1') Beginning of the next iteration of the self-organisation.
Functional intraclosures (organisms), formed by this process fill up the set of self-organised organic structures M. They belong to a higher level of organisation. The new level of organisation is initial for recurrence of the described self-organised logic etc. "
Are you saying that once all the M structures are formed on one level then the sum is the lowest structure on the next level up ?
ANS
It is so only in general because a structures from the previous levels may be a participants of self-organising processes on the next level up the same.
Q 31
"The last peculiarity - the functional isomorphism of organisation of the living on any levels of organisation is the property of the fractal organisation of life. "
Perhaps, but this is the first mention of fractals here and the context isn't too clear. Is life 'fractal' ? If so in what sense, just self-similarity of process ?
ANS
Life is the functional fractal. There is self-similarity of all functionally intraclosed structures of all levels of organisation of the living.
Q32
" An automatic forced selection of alternative combinations of the elements under consideration goes in the direction satisfying the formulated extreme principles. "
Why forced and automatic ?
ANS
Here "forced and automatic" = spontaneous conformity to natural laws. On the question" why ?"- the answer is - "following the physical laws: the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the general principle of symmetry of physical phenomena formulated by Pierre Curie in 1894".
Q 33
"The mediating function of information becomes a participator of principle in mutual co-ordination of self-organised organic structures beginning with the stage of emergence of hypercycles."
Which operations use 'information' - there seems to be no 'choice' operation to make a decision ?
ANS
Control, reproduction and creation are the operations which use information and only operation of creation is a choice operation to make an emergent decision. A noncreative decisions may be made and by such operations as control and reproduction.
Q 34
Do you favour a random mutation ?
ANS
No I don't. I am think that recombination processes are preferable and enough for sampling and for emergent evolution. Some authors hold this viewpoint:
East, I.R.: 1997, "On Recombinative Sampling", in "Proceedings of Workshop on Evolutionary Computing", 7th-8th April 1997, Manchester, D. Corne and J. Shapiro ( Organisers), pp. 13-18.
East, I.R., & J. Rowe: 1994, "Direct Replacement: A Genetic Algorithm without Mutation Avoids Deception", in "Progress in Evolutionary Computation: AI '97 and AI '94 Workshops on Evolutionary Computation" Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol. 956, Xin Yao (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 41-48.
Spears, W.M.: 1992, "Crossover or Mutation?", in "Proceedings of The Second Workshop on the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms", Whitley, L.D. (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 221-237.
Q 35
" Information is the central factor determining the stability and the functional efficiency of informationally mediated stationary structures, the living organisms belong to. Hence, the main link in the evolutionary process of the living is functional perfection for obtaining, accumulating, processing and using information. "
Hard to see how this follows. It may occur (we seem to follow this trend) but there seems nothing 'driving' progress this way.
ANS
Only integral (functionally intraclosed) organisation is the physical sense, instrument and explanation of arising and evolution of the living. And only information is the key essence of this phenomenon. This is the reason for thinking about the evolutionary process of the living as about functional perfection for obtaining, accumulating, processing and using information.
Q 36
" Information is reflection of a definite trajectory of behaviour of the structure in the space of its possible behavioural forms that allows the structure an identical reproduction of the selection made by the structure earlier in its behaviour. "
This sound like a cyclic repetition, if it is then how can we account for the system exiting the cycle - doing something else ?
ANS
Control and reproduction are based on a cyclic repetition but creation permit us to do something else. Creation being based on recombinative sampling make new information. {such comment is too simple - may be here is misunderstanding of your question; is it?}
Q 37
" It can be also said that information is an interrelation of events fixed in any way. In the last sense information and reflection of the function is one and the same. "
'reflection of the function' ? What is this ?
ANS
Information = reflection of the function = function of preference of the function behaviour = the base for the choosing mediator between events = the base for mediated decision (for control) of preference of functional interdependence between alternatives of forms of behaviour of events = the base for co-ordination of events.
Q 38
"Control is a directed change in the probability of realising alternative trajectories of the controlled object behaviour. "
Switching between attractors ? Operation 8 & 8' ?
ANS
Switching is 'elementary operation'. The elementary operations one at the time can't be some of the integral operations which are the complexes of elementary operations. Switching is only switching and not the control but the control is including switching of course. Control is making decision about a switching + the switching.
Q 39
"Reproduction is a cycle of the structure transformations under control, which results in emergence of its copy. "
Which operation(s) is this ?
ANS
Reproduction is the integral operation that is a complex of elementary operations of set R. The simplest form of reproduction is autocatalysis.
Autocatalysis is such cycle of cycles of catalysis which reproduce (duplicate) the initial catalyst-participator.
Catalysis is principally more simple cycle 1->2->3 : 1)catalyst + substrate -> 2) catalyst-substrate -> 3) catalyst + product. The cycle of catalysis is return of the catalyst to initial state after the act of catalysis.
Q 40
" Creation is a combinatorial process aimed at forming a new type of information mediating the structure behaviour control and/or reproduction in higher ( in accordance to the extremal principles) evolutionary level. The obtained information, in particular, realises the process of polymorphic reproduction of the structure and of the substructures (i.e. reproduction of a new type of permutation of elements by introducing and/or removing its elements and/or by changing configurations)."
What process underlies these changes, in all your operations in fact ? Is it level dependent (i.e. micro implemented) or do you claim (somehow) that all levels operate via some common method ?
ANS
All levels operate via the some common functional method of course, but the brain-based mind is the first case of occurrence of a closed autorealisation of creation not by the direct natural selection of alternatives but by the simulated by mind selection.
Q 41
" Life is a spontaneous process of combinatorial generation of the groupoid G of functional intraclosures (organisms, organisations) by combining the operations of set R above structures of the set M. "
Modelling life on such a set of transforms may be useful, but I haven't seen how this idea can be applied in any practical way here. Can it ?
ANS
The idea may be used for a real virtual creation of a living (not only of the biological form but and for economy, ...). I think it is possible to develop:
virtual processors for each of twenty the elementary operations,
virtual combinatorial commutator of the virtual processors,
virtual integral processors of such functions as control, reproduction, creation ...
A powerful supercomputer may be used for such virtualisation of the living, I hope. It is possible that only after such developing we should tell about a real full-scale work with a knowledge.
Q 42
"Culture is the whole complex of all highest (the evolutionary most progressive) achievements in all fields of human activities. Estimation of evolutional progressivity occurs according to the evolutionary progress criterion, which has been formulated in this work."
Which criteria - information content ?
ANS
Arising of "(P x S):m" of the structure.
S is level of symmetry, P is power and m is mass of the structure.
Q 43
In the simplest and most general form this combinatorial enclosure is represented by all possible length two permutations of the three integrating operations.
Control, Reproduction, Creation I presume ?
ANS
Yes of course
Q 44
Why combinatorial length two combinations of integrating operations: creation, reproduction and control (not 3 say) ?
ANS
1. "Length two" is the most simple form of combinations. Evolution is moving from simplest forms to more complex. And we are going step by step following the evolution.
2. All possible of length two permutations of group operations form so called Kelley's table. Properties of Kelley's table is minimally enough for proofs for presence of a mathematical group.
3. Really occur all possible permutation and not only length two of course. For instance the all possible length two permutations of the previous length two permutations. The last combinations imply that in each of the 9 cells in Table 2 can be divided into analogous 9 subcells. For example religion (as and science, policy ...) have its ideology, its policy, its teaching ... .
Q 45
"The real content of individual elements of culture (professional positions) are in addition profoundly differentiated. So, each of the 9 cells in Table 2 can be divided into analogous 9 subcells. This results from the formulated combinatorial nature of life. And according to common sense, it is clear as well, that, for instance, there are some elements of art in real policy, and there are some elements of ideology in a real religion (or art). "
Are you saying that it is self-similar - all boxes contain all the rest ?
ANS
Yes, of course, but on the other level of consideration (on the other level of organisation). It is the example of fractal organisation of life.
Q 46
As far as the table 3 goes I'm not sure it makes sense, is Religion not Control in a large part ?
ANS
Not more than in 1/9 of its part but is not "in a large part" and not as "Control" but as Ideology (as control of control).
Q 47
Same may be said for Science !
ANS
Not more than in 1/9 of its part but is not "in a large part" and not as "Control" but as Ideology.
Q 48
"Old information moves in culture in the opposite direction beginning with ideology. "
Seems Ideology and Religion are too similar to form two ends of a spectrum... Wasn't Communism a form of religion, the Muslim's seem to regard the one as the same as the other.
ANS
Identification of Ideology and Religion is one of the main blunders of our civilisation. It is the reason of many misfortunes.
The practical identification of Communism and Fixed Ideology is the main reason of many misfortunes of USSR.
Q 49
"In case the range of known (accessible) combined elements is not replenished, the creation process may reach a deadlock, and new creative prospects can arise thanks to discovery either of new, earlier unknown elements ..."
You can't do that ! If you have a closed 'complete' group, how can you then allow 'new' elements - it says your group wasn't complete in the first place doesn't it ?
ANS
I mean here the elements of set of compatible systems M and elements of environment but not operations of set R.
Q 50
"or to that of new sources of the exhausted known elements or to discovery of new properties of the old elements. Thus, discovery is a special form of the creation process replenishing it with new participators."
I think this is a problem with such all encompassing schemes, to account for new things you need to show where they come from, and then why they were not apparent previously. But I'm not criticising your idea here - just trying to be clear what you are saying ;-)
ANS
Many girls are apparent but only some of them we acquainted with :-) New things come as and new girls from environment ( + SEE the previous answer).
Crystallography seems to relate to Fourier (and other) transforms, where multiple arrangements (e.g. shifts) can give similar results - just unsure of the intended connection to the micro/macro components we consider here.
ANS
Crystallography is the most simple and well known example of application of the symmetry theory to a real world. All others more complex applications may be made similar. In addition I think that we (all people and life in general) are some type of a functional crystals of highest (reached up to now) symmetry levels.
You somehow derive 10 sets of functional transforms from this matter polymorphism, which confused me - I can't see how they are related. The transforms are either basic axioms or implied by the matter - surely not both ?
ANS
Their "relations" are of two types: i) they are the ALL possible ELEMENTARY functional transforms which MAY be. ii) they are NON-OVERLAPPING.
They are part of axioms, but all axioms are of implied by the matter type - I think. They must be related to the main point of the subject and they are spontaneously arising from my intuition on the base of knowledge and of experience.
Q 53
They are a set of possible operations (some need more specific definitions perhaps) but don't seem complete necessarily - other common transforms (e.g. skew, scaling) seem missing.
ANS
Skew is the form of combinations of change of position in space and of reversion (fixation) of position in space. Scaling is the form of the congruent concentrating - scattering (with restoration of configuration).
I am not feeling the missing - if you are - please try to give it me.
More specific definitions are of needs of course and it is the next step of the work. I am looking for collaboration with physicists and mathematicians for such work. Each pair of mutually opposite elementary operations in the couple with "identification" may generate it's own specific groupoid (group?). It is possibly that there are very many types of the groupoids (groups?) and in each of such subgroupoids.
Q 54
"different symmetry groupoids for the static, informationally unmediated stationary and informationally mediated stationary structures".
Must express surprise, thought the whole idea was that they all had the same transforms.
ANS
Here is "the same elementary transforms" but not "the same + all possible". COMBINATIONS OF ELEMENTARY OPERATIONS ARE SPECIFIC and DIFFERENT in the context. For example such phenomenon as "information". In addition, - my theory is abstract and there are many concrete structures which are characterised by one and same abstract groupoid.
There are very many of possible abstract (and especially of concrete) groupoids which are subgroupoids of the groupoid G - all possible structures of any of Universe, I think.
Q 55
On what basis would they be denied any of the transforms in G (however improbable) ?
ANS
For alive it is impossible. A denial of any of the transforms in G for alive is a death and it may be possible only for a dead structures.
Q 56
i) 'micro forms leading to macro behaviour'.
I mean there that same emergent properties occur from several alternative micro states. I'm unclear how your spaces of 'behavioural forms' and 'transitional states' relate.
ANS
E.g.: For simplest case (gas) parameter of micro behaviour is velocity of molecule and macro parameter of 'transitional states' is entropy.
Q 57
I'd assumed that, using for example the CA 'Game of Life' , that the emergent shapes (gliders) would be your macro transitional states and the individual cell states and rules your micro forms. No ?
ANS
It is artificial game. Let allow that it is reality. The gliders are the same microstructures as and individual cell states of course. About macrostructures in the game I find difficulty to say something.
Q 58
3 extreme principles. Here is biggest confusion I think. If you only allow: free energy to decrease, entropy to increase and symmetry to increase then this may be O.K. overall - if your macrostructure is a closed universe. But it says nothing at all about any order.
ANS
From my paper: "There are certain criteria of the direction of spontaneous autonomous transformations of macrostructures , i.e. a spontaneous behaviour of microstructures within an ISOLATED macrostructure is only "permitted" when: .... Criteria 1,2 and 3.
In this work complete entropy of the ISOLATED structure of order is defined as a volume of the space of possible transitional structures of order on their way to equilibrium.
To think that the structure is entirely ISOLATED is just idealisation. When extreme principles are applied to a real structure, recourse to its MENTAL ISOLATION MUST BE HAD. In fact, the structure remains open. The mental isolation of the structure is emphasised by mean of the notion "independence" of its transformations (behaviour). It is most correct to use the formulated extreme principles locally, as a criterion for choosing the direction of spontaneous processes at each concrete point of evolution ..."
Q 59
I'd assumed your macrostructure (and my macrosystem) was the organised bit (e.g. a cell) the larger universe providing the energy/matter flows being irrelevant for our purposes here. So in that context a operating cell creates local order, stores energy, breaks symmetry (any order from homogeneity must break at least one symmetry) and reduces entropy in its vicinity.
ANS
Sorry, but the last is the wrong way round for me. Please, give me the source of this position about symmetry. What is the symmetry from this point of view? Please give me a strict definition what is the entropy here?
Q 60
Life may be a process of moving to equilibrium overall, even of accelerating the process (James Kay and Eric Schneider claim life or any complex process maximises entropy increase, which seems to tie in with what you say, see: http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/index.html ).
ANS
Yes, of course. I am enjoying reading the papers. Thank you very much.
Q 61
"choice in microstructures increases power/..symmetry". Not sure what this 'specific power' is,
ANS
I think that 'specific power' of a car, which = car's power/car's mass is clear for you. I means the same for microstructures.
Q 62
but how can it increase if free energy decreases ?
ANS
Increasing of the 'specific power' of the car means increasing of possibility of the car to decrease it's free energy per unit of time.
Q 63
I wouldn't say 'power increase' was a feature of say car development (or biology), some explorations go that way, others the opposite (efficiency say).
ANS
"The opposite" (decrease) was only when the symmetry was risen - I think.
Q 64
As to symmetry, I just fail to see how a car symmetry has increased,
ANS
Roughly, - increasing of complexity = increasing of symmetry. Is a car complexity increasing? I think you must say "Yes it is".
Q 65
Let alone a computers :-) Your PxS/m relation still doesn't convey anything meaningful to me I think.
ANS
1."My PxS/m" is extremely new notion. It needs a time for understanding
of the context and for getting into the way - I think. Formerly and others
complex notions - such as speed, power, speeding-up, percentage, surplus
value ... were new the same.
2. About increasing of PxS/m in evolution of computers. Power (P) and
Complexity (S) of computers is rising and especially rising relative to
a mass (m) of computers. I think it is clear.
Q 66
Why should inverse mass come into it - suggests a mouse has more 'evolutionary direction' than an elephant (rest being equal) ?
ANS
An elephant is more and more clever than a mouse i.e. the symmetry of an elephant is greater and greater than of a mouse - but we must keep in mind that they are not the divergent competitors in evolution and we are not of needs to compare them. The example is the game of our mind but not the really possible step of competition in real evolution. The integral criterion of evolution is working for cases of choice of evolutionary branching alternatives.
Q 67
Fractal structure. Fractals seem to be connected, so self-similarity is over same subjects. While I'd agree we have scale invarient properties, they occur at discrete levels so I would hesitate to call them fractal here. We have perhaps an 'abstraction fractal' which we can scale and fit to any case - but not a true fractal in reality I'd say.
ANS
Your interpretations are useful, of course, but I must say that the theoretically-fractal functional structure of Life is one of the most exiting features for me. During the whole of my Life I am enjoying thinking about it.
What is reality? Is a mirror reflection a reality? Is the right true correct theory of an object a reality? Is the 'abstract fractal' a 'fractal'? Why the 'abstract fractal' cannot be called 'fractal' here? Any fractal is abstract - is not that so?
Q 68
I should remind the Kelley theorem that any group can be represented by substitutions. I understand that the 'operations' described in Tabl.1 are the 'group elements' while the 'group operation' is something else. It was not clearly explained what is the 'group operation'.
ANS
'Group operation' is COMBINATION - it may be clear from the text.
Q 69
May be the group operation is changing the structure of the living ?
ANS
Changing of the structure is the "transformation of configuration" operation .
Q 70
We should keep in mind that there is the only one a group operation for a group.
ANS
Yes, of course, and it is COMBINATION. But here is the abstract group - group which generated by applying of a group operation "combination" on set R of other operations from table 1. Real processes are here a permutations of elements of set M and elements of the environment.
Q 71
In the paper the spontaneous dynamics of structures is considering. This is very interesting for me, although I don't see how does time appear in the static 'group theory' vision?
ANS
Time appear in combinations of elements of set M and elements of the environment. Changes in symmetry as and in free energy and in entropy are the main corelators of time. Time is measuring of the changes of our world.
Q 72
"... There are certain criteria of the direction of spontaneous autonomous transformations of macrostructures, i.e. a spontaneous behaviour of microstructures within an isolated macrostructure is only "permitted" when: - (1) free energy of the macrostructure (its capability of doing some work) decreases; - (2) entropy of the macrostructure increases; - (3) symmetry of the macrostructure increases. "
Here I see a hidden supposition that the 'direction', 'decreases' and 'increases' are in respect of direction of time.
ANS
Yes of course, because (1), (2), and (3) are correlates of direction of time.
Q73
It is very interesting what is a unit of symmetry (like 'joule' for energy) used in measuring of symmetry.
ANS
'Joule' is result of an agreement of physicists. Similar agreements are and in crystallography. Look: what is of higher level of symmetry - pyramid, cube or hexaoctahedron? I think you know.
Q74
Question from Riccardo Poli (School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, UK):
"I have tried very hard to understand how your paper can be related to Genetic Programming as I know it (i.e. the optimisation of computer programs with a genetic algorithm, a parse tree representation and special forms of crossover and mutation). Unfortunately, I failed miserably. ... I would be very glad if you could give me some ideas on how your "integral algorithm of organisation..." can help GP? Thanks."
ANS
Thank you very much for the acquaintance with my paper and for your attempt to understand how my paper can be related to Genetic Programming.
I am a biologist and not a programmer, but as I understand,
the algorithm of ,
the generalised notion of information,
phisicomathematical formulation of the principle of integral criteria
of
the spontaneous evolutionary direction
and their semantics are the key questions for the optimisation
of computer programs with a genetic algorithms and for an automatic programming
technique for evolving computer programs that solve problems.
As I believe, the algorithm of creation, the generalised notion of information, phisicomathematical formulation of the principle of integral criteria of the authomatic evolutionary direction and their SEMANTICS cannot be found by the programmers. They and their semantics may be found by a biologists in the general context of Life and they are in my "integral algorithm of organisation ...".
Q75
"would it be to simple to say that life and its evolution is nothing more than the coalescence of an ever increasing amount of information into an ever increasing number of points?"
ANS
In some sense you are right. I think life is organisational intensification of the Universe energy dissipation by increasing amount of information ... . But it is not only increasing amount of information, but and Using of the information for intensification of dissipation by structures of matter. And not only simple using but and intensification of the using of information for ... The intensification means an increasing of the specific product of the power of the new-emerging structure on its symmetry i.e. for example miniaturisation of the process. Information cannot be self-satisfied by itself - as and money without people.