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