The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward 1443887218, 9781443887212

Citation preview

The Theory of Evolution

The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward By

Oleg Bazaluk

The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward By Oleg Bazaluk Translated by Tamara Blazhevych Proofread by Lloyd Barton This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Oleg Bazaluk All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-8721-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8721-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................ ix Part I: Historical and Philosophical Analysis of the Evolutionary Theories Chapter One ................................................................................................. 3 The Concept of Evolution Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 11 The Concept of Evolution in the Modern Scientific Theories Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 23 The Concept of Evolution in Philosophy Part II: Basics of the Theory “Evolving Matter” Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 35 The Universals of Evolution Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 47 The Evolution Model of Inert Matter Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 59 The Evolution Model of Living Matter Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 85 The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 119 Transition States of Matter: Bioinert Matter Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 125 BioIntelligent Matter

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 129 The Structure of the Universe: The Model “Evolving Matter” Conclusion ............................................................................................... 135 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 141

PREFACE

In the book the author defines evolution as continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments; analyzes the existing approaches to the research of evolution in modern science and philosophy, the extent of development of the factors and causes of evolution. Unifying interdisciplinary researches on evolution in cosmology, biology, neurobiology and philosophy, the author represents his vision of evolution in the model “Evolving Matter” which allows us to consider not only the regularity of transition of a space vacuum in neural ensembles, but also to see our Universe as a complex, non-uniform organization. The book contains systematized interdisciplinary information on the theory of evolution, and clarifies the new world view offered by the author.

INTRODUCTION

In previous works dating back more than a decade, the author has perfected the arguments that have been developed by him since the year 2000, regarding the evolutionary model of the Universe – Evolving Matter [Bazaluk, 2000; Bazaluk, 2002; Bazaluk, 2003; Bazaluk, 2003a; Bazaluk, 2005; Bazaluk, 2006]. The peculiar results of these research studies were stated in the works: “Cosmic Travels - Travelling Mind” and “Philosophical Problems of Cosmology” [Bazaluk, 2012; Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013], in which the author represented the latest versions of the model. Approbation of the ideas took place during many scientific and philosophical meetings of various formats. However, the main discussions took place in the course of communication with members of the International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) (organized in 2004) (http://www.bazaluk.com/) and in the journal “Philosophy and Cosmology” (http://ispcjournal.org/) (published since 2004). In the present research the author analyzes the existing approaches to the researching of evolution, and the degree of development of its factors and causes in modern science and philosophy. Unifying interdisciplinary researches on evolution in cosmology, biology, neurobiology and philosophy, the author represents his vision of evolution in the model Evolving Matter. The author defines evolution as continuous and nonlinear complication and represents it as a formal model. The formalization of the factors and causes of evolution allowed for their operation in the construction of certain logical models (schemes) that led the author to the open-ended conclusions explored here, which are essentially different from modern ideas of the evolution of our Universe. In the course of writing the book, the author solved the following tasks: 1. Carry out a general historical-philosophical analysis of the theory of evolution in cosmology, biology, neurobiology and philosophy; 2. Clarify the meaning of the concept of evolution; define evolution as continuous and nonlinear block complication of the structure of

x

Introduction

matter, types of interaction and environments; argue characteristics of this definition; 3. Unify the factors and causes of the evolution of the Universe, biological life and humanity; represent their universality at the scale of evolution of any state of matter; 4. Prove that evolution of the Material World is a consequence of the variability of the factors and causes of evolution (Evolution of Evolution); 5. On the basis of the unified and variable factors and causes of evolution, offer the systematization of knowledge in the evolution models of Inert Matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter; 6. Having taken as the basis of the features of construction of evolution models of Inert Matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter; formalize them and extrapolate on a cosmic scale. Represent the received results in the model Evolving Matter. Unfortunately, to carry out all of those tasks within the framework of scientific methodology is not feasible. Therefore, in cases of retrospection and extrapolation on a cosmic scale, philosophical methodology that carries out the function of intellectual reconnaissance in cognition was used. This admits more arbitrary interpretations of scientific facts in accordance with the scale of the Universe. Thus, the logic of the book’s content is based on scientific and philosophical methodology [Bazaluk, 2012] that, in the opinion of the author, allows one to consider evolution of the Material World, even beyond the scale of our Universe.

PART I: HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES

CHAPTER ONE THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION

In everyday life, speaking about regularity or historicity of processes and phenomena in the world around us, we first of all agree to the existence of a process of evolution. In classical, conventional understanding, evolution (from the Latin. evolutio - deployment) is a theory about changes in society and nature, their direction, order and regularities [Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1999]. In the 18th century Georges Buffon, a French naturalist, authored his monumental thirty-six volumes of Histoire Naturelle, and in doing so substantiated the thought of the “unity of type”, the structure of all living beings and their common roots. However, only two great personalities of the 19th century: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin, defined and argued two different directions of the evolutionary theory - transformism and natural selection. The famous Russian scientific historian Yuri Tchaikovsky, who analyzed vast strata of research works written before the works of Jean Lamarck and Charles Darwin on the theory of evolution, said that ideas of evolution had passed a difficult path and in any case, did not start with the works by Lamarck and Darwin. The first ideas of evolution arose in religion, in ancient cosmogonies - the myths about the birth of the world. Schools of the first naturalists (Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, Empedocles), Ancient Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), theologians of the Middle Ages (Pierre Abelard, Albertus Magnus) greatly enriched the evolutionary ideas of new facts, details and approaches [Tchaikovsky, 2006]. As a historian of science Yuri Tchaikovsky believed that the founder of evolutionism was actually a British lawyer, theologian and financier Matthew Hale, who had written a natural-philosophical treatise “Origin of Mankind by Natural Propagation” in the second half of the 17th century. The treatise was published after his death in London in 1677. In this work the word “evolution” was first mentioned in the biological sense (though only in one place) [Tchaikovsky, 2006]. Between 1794 and 1796, Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote and published the scientific treatise “Zoonomia” which, according to

4

Chapter One

many researchers, is the main evolutionary work of the 18th century [Tchaikovsky, 2006]. At the end of the 18th century the works of Immanuel Kant, Johann Herder, Carl Kielmeyer (the latter taught the great French naturalist Georges Cuvier) and others, laid the foundations for the German school of evolutionism. Thus, before the works of Lamarck and Darwin, evolutionary ideas, to a varying degree, had been developed for more than one millennium. In 1809 the published work “Philosophy of Zoology” by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and 50 years later Charles Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” summed up the results of the evolutionary ideas of the time, and planned new directions for research [Darwin, 1986]. In modern science, four major evolutionary ideas (or approaches) are predominant: 1. Lamarckism (a direction that emerged in the second half of the 18th century, based on the works of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) has, in a broad sense, various evolutionary theories ascribed to it (mainly those emerging in the 19th and early 20th centuries), in which the main driving force of evolution (in its changing types) are considered to be inherent to organisms, and in the aspiration to perfection. As a rule, major importance in such theories is also attached to the impact of “exercise” or “non-exercise” on the evolutionary fates of organs, as it is assumed that the effects of exercise or non-exercise can be inherited [Vorontsov, 1999: pp.201-210]; 2. Geoffroyism (a direction which emerged in the early 19th century, based on the classic works of the French zoologist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) is an evolutionary concept in biology, postulating that the reason for evolution lies in the expedient and heritable reactions of fetuses to environmental changes. The representatives of this direction place emphasis mainly on the initial stages of ontogeny as the most important for the process of transformation of life forms; 3. Darwinism (a direction which emerged in the middle of the 19th century, based on the works of Charles Darwin) is a direction of evolutionary thought, according to which the main (although not sole) factor of evolution is natural selection;

The Concept of Evolution

5

4. Nomogenesis (a direction which emerged in the early 20th century, based on the works of the Russian zoologist and geographer Lev Berg) involves a central feature, which is the recognition of the natural character of variation of organisms, and sees this as the basis of the evolutionary process. Russian specialists in the field of evolutionary theory Kirill Zawadzki and Eduard Kolchinsky, after logically combining the possible classifications with the results of historical-critical analysis of the different concepts of evolution, came to the conclusion of the existence of the following major doctrines: 1) uniformism; 2) variaformizm; 3) neocatastrophism. In the work “Evolution of Evolution” they systematized a great number of evolutionary concepts created during the process of developing the theory of evolution, and relating to the above three doctrines [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977]. The stages of the formation and development of the theory of evolution have been considered in a large number of scientific reviews. For example, they are in Yuri Filipchenko’s work “Evolutionary Ideas in Biology: A Historical Survey of the Evolutionary Theory of the 19th Century” [Filipchenko, 1977]; in the large-scale research work “Science of Life Development: The Experience of the Theory of Evolution” by Yuri Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006]; in the scientific and popular-scientific works of Russian biologist Alexander Markov [Markov, 2010; Markov, 2011; Markov, 2011a]; in Eduard Vitol’s analytical article “The Structure of Modern Evolutionism” [Vitol, 2012; Vitol, 2012a]; in the research of the biologist Michael Golubovsky [Golubovsky, 2000]; in the monographs of the philosopher Sergey Haytun, along with the author’s conclusions[Haytun, 2005; Haytun, 2006]; and are featured in many other reviews, too. To understand the amount of work that researchers are faced with in trying to capture the process of evolution merely at the scale of the Earth, we should consider the following figures. If the periodic table of the famous Russian chemist and inventor Dmitri Mendeleev includes “only” 92 elements (without transuranic elements), then by the mid-90s of the 20th century mineralogists already knew about 36,000 species of natural minerals. Moreover, biodiversity, forming a modern biosphere at the species level, is estimated as a number between 1.5 and 3 million species by different authors, representing about 3% of the total number of species that have existed over the 3.54 billion year history of the Earth’s biosphere

6

Chapter One

[Severtsov, 2005]. It should be added that each individual in any form is unique, and add to that the features of the development of the human brain and social, sociocultural and linguistic diversity, and then again add to that all of the Universe with each one of its mysteries and features of development. All this huge, multifaceted knowledge of planetary and cosmic evolution needs to be combined by one single theory. Based on the classic research works of Charles Darwin and his predecessors, many generations of scientists in the past have proved at least five major directions that lead our understanding of the theory of evolution to a qualitatively new level: Firstly, in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century there was a fusion of what were originally two separate directions of thinking; genetics by Gregor Mendel, and Charles Darwin’s population-based evolutionary approach. As a result this fusion formed the developing, and up to the present time, synthetic theory of evolution which examines not only changes of forms (evolution of organisms), but also the development of the contents of living organisms; molecules and genes. The basis of a new direction was laid down by the works of Sergey Chetverikov, Nikolai Vavilov, Ivan Schmalhausen and Nikolai Timofeev-Ressovsky in the USSR, Thomas Morgan, Hermann Muller, Green Wright, Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Stebbins, Ernst Mayr and George Simpson in the USA; and John Haldane and Julian Huxley in England [Krasilov, 1977]. Secondly, from the late 19th to the early 20th century, thanks to the works by Rudolf Clausius, Ludwig Boltzmann, Albert Einstein and others, the laws of thermodynamics were added to the basis of the theory of evolution, and they gained physical and mathematical justification. Later, through the works of Alexander Fridman, Edwin Hubble, George Gamow, Yakov Zel'dovich, and many others, the physical and mathematical sides of the theory of evolution became the basis of modern cosmological concepts. According to the words of astrophysicist Vladimir Strel'nitskij: “...in this century astrophysics became “fully evolutionary science”. The theories of evolution of the Metagalaxy (the expanding Universe), galaxies, stars, interstellar environment, planetary systems were created, and all these theories “are stitched” well together into a single evolutionary sequence of events” [Problem of Search for Life, 1986: p.51]. Thirdly, in the second half of the 20th century, as a result of a deeper understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, as well as thanks to the

The Concept of Evolution

7

research of Jules Henri Poincare, Edward Lorenz, William Ashby, Ilya Prigogine, Hermann Haken, Jean-Marie Lena and many other scientists, it was found that in general, all the existing systems in the world contain both elements of order and disorder. A model of dynamic chaos was developed and proposed by a pleiad of researchers that united fully deterministic and principally random systems. This model became the basis for better understanding the evolution of different systems combining mechanics, thermodynamics and a model of development of biological systems. It showed that chaos at the micro level can lead to ordering at the macro level. Moreover, it was found that in a variety of real-life situations, ordering cannot be separated from chaos, and chaos is in a super complex association with ordering. Chaos and order “live” together [Gorbachev, 2000]. In the scientific area were introduced such concepts as “selforganization”, “synergy”, “non-equilibrium thermodynamics”, “attractor”, “fluctuation”, “open system”, “bifurcation point” and many others. Fourthly, an essential point in the understanding of the process of evolution, especially the evolution of complex systems, was reached thanks to a deeper understanding of the Fibonacci numbers and Bohr’s complementarity principle (the complementarity principle is one of the most important principles of quantum mechanics, formulated in 1927 by the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr. According to this principle, for a complete description of quantum-mechanical phenomena it is necessary to apply two mutually exclusive (“additional”) sets of classical concepts, the totality of which gives comprehensive information about these phenomena as holistic. For example, the additional, in quantum mechanics, is spatiotemporal and energetic, impulsive systems.). As was noted by Professor Vladimir Gorbachev: “... essentially, the Fibonacci numbers are becoming a backbone factor of the harmonic self-organization of a living organism. In this sense, evolution is not simply adaptation of an organism to external conditions and its desire for harmony, [but is the] proportionality of the entire body as a whole and functioning of its internal organs as parts” [Gorbachev, 2000: p.38]. It should also be noted that through the harmonious development of an organism as a whole, as well as its parts, it is well aligned with the universal: Bohr’s complementarity principle for all of modern science. As applied to the considered problem, he rejects the possibility of the understanding of life and its evolution through the isolation and examination of body parts: defining more precisely one side of a living object, we lose absolute clarity in the understanding of the other one.

Chapter One

8

Fifthly, while the synthetic theory of evolution considers the deployment of life as a process of divergence of species, the American biologist Lynn Margulis created a modern version of the theory of symbiogenesis in which she reasonably argues that the formation of new complex essences through the symbiosis of previously independent organisms has always been of a more powerful and important evolutionary force. The theory of symbiogenesis (the symbiotic theory, the endosymbiotic theory, the theory of endosymbiosis) explains the mechanism of occurrence of some organelles of a Eukaryotic Cell: mitochondria, gidrogenosom and photosynthetic plastids. According to Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan: “Life got the upper hand over the planet, not in the battle, but gradually enmeshed it in its mesh” [Capra, 2003: p.226]. However, despite the undoubted successes in the research of evolution and the evidence of the fact of evolution, philosophical and scientific understanding and even intrascientific (multidisciplinary) understanding, it would seem that a uniform process at the scale of the Material World is significantly different. In the early 20th century, in the article “The Concept of Evolution and Crisis of Evolutionism”, the well-known Russian biologist and philosopher Alexander Lyubishchev wrote: “When about one and the same, on the basis of generally identical materials, such diverse opinions are expressed, then it is natural that the question arises; it is no mistake. May be it occurs because one puts in the word a completely different context.” [Lyubishchev, 1982]. In this work, defining different contents of evolution and indicating the opposite concepts, Lyubishchev emphasized four main antitheses, aporias [Lyubishchev, 1982]: -

-

Evolution (transformism) and constancy; Evolution (preformation) and epigenesis (Preformation and epigenesis are the concepts of natural philosophy, designating opposing views on the formation of an embryo: preformation describes initial availability of all the structures in an embryo which then grow into organs, epigenesis, on the contrary, indicates that development of an embryo involves the emergence (from structureless matter) of all its organs.); Evolution and revolution; Evolution and emanation (Emanation in philosophy is a conceptual term for the origin of the Universum (Universe) by the expiration of it, from the transcendent First Principle, the One (Godhead)).

The Concept of Evolution

9

At the beginning of the 21st century the famous Russian biologist and specialist in the theory of evolution Vladimir Levchenko, developing the ideas of Lyubishchev, Schmalhausen, Berg, Lima de Faria and others, pointed out that “evolution” as development (in cosmology) and “evolution” as evolution (in biology) are, in fact, different things referred to with a single word, in view of that fact, there are long processes of change to be considered [Levchenko, 2003; Levchenko, 2012]. Understanding of evolution in philosophy and science varies (cosmology, biology, and neurobiology), and as a consequence, these variations lead to different understandings of the factors and causes of evolution. As a result, evolution of the Material World loses its integrity, consistency and commonality, and it turns into “conceptual chaos” in which the specialists of various disciplines oppose and explain uniform processes and phenomena for the whole of the Material World, but do so from the standpoint of their specialization. From the author’s point of view, the formalization of evolution, as well as the factors and causes, enable the combination of scientific and philosophical conceptions of evolution and allow for its representation as a formal universal model as closely aligned as possible to the doctrine variaformizm [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977]. Relying on scientific and philosophical methodology, this work attempts to imagine the process of evolution, and the development of evolution, i.e. in a uniform understanding for cosmology, biology, neurobiology and philosophy.

CHAPTER TWO THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION IN THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

Traditionally, evolution of the Material World is considered in cosmological and biological theories, as well as in philosophy. In the past few decades, evolution started to be considered in neurosciences, in particular as neuroevolution. Let us consider what meaning is nested into the term “evolution” by modern cosmological, biological and neurobiological evolutionary theories (models, concepts).

I. The Concept of Evolution in the Cosmological Models The Ukrainian specialist in the field of cognitive philosophy, Iliana Vladlenova considers that the use of cosmological simulation is a necessary limit caused by the “...complexity of processes and phenomena occurring in the Universe, as well as an increase in the pace of mathematization and the expanding of its scope” [Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013: p.51]. In Vladlenova’s understanding, the cosmological model is “...object-deputy of object-origin, which provides a study of some features of an original, giving information about its most important features” [Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013: p.51]. Cosmological models are physical and mathematical models, attempting to describe the development of the Universe as a whole. At present in cosmology, the Big Bang Theory is universally recognized, explaining the two most significant facts of cosmology: the expanding Universe and the existence of cosmic background radiation. Based on the Big Bang Theory, the modern Standard Cosmological Model was built: the Lambda-CDM Model (Lambda-Cold Dark Matter). The alternative to the Standard Cosmological Model of the Universe is the Stationary Model of the Universe, which formed the basis for Newton’s cosmological model.

Chapter Two

12

The principal difference between the Standard Cosmological Model and the Stationary one regarding the evolution of the Universe is that the former is based upon Einstein’s gravity and geometrical representation theory, while the latter is based upon the achievements of the classical mechanics of the 17th and 18th centuries and explains the movement and interaction of studied cosmic objects on the basis of mechanical laws. In the modern Standard Cosmological Model Lambda-CDM, the evolution of our Universe is presented as a catastrophic process of rapid expansion, accompanied by an intensive fast varying gravitational field. In the course of perturbation expansion, the spontaneous birth of the space-time metric occurred in a parametric manner, from vacuum fluctuations [Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013]. Iliana Vladlenova identifies the following stages in the development of the Standard Model of evolution of the Universe [Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013]: -

Fridman’s theory; De Sitter’s cosmological model; The model of the Universe as association theory; The cosmological model of chaotic inflation; Brane cosmological models; Kaluza-Klein cosmological models; Supersymmetric cosmological models; Cosmological models in String theory (ekpyrotic and pre-explosion scenario); The model of loop quantum gravity.

The birth of each cosmological model expanded scientific and philosophical understanding of the evolution of the Universe, and to a varying degree aspired to reach dominance over the Standard Model. We will not consider the shortcomings of cosmological models in terms of their scientific adequacy (this question is raised in many scientific and philosophical works already, e.g. in the works of Steven Weinberg [Weinberg, 2004; Weinberg, 2013]), we are interested in how is evolution represented in these models? We must take into consideration that until recently cosmology remained more of a philosophical discipline than a scientific one, and only due to results obtained from particles in physics being related to the theory of the Early Universe have cosmological

The Concept of Evolution in the Modern Scientific Theories

13

models acquired the status of scientific models. Perhaps, therefore, between philosophical and cosmological views on the evolution of the Universe there is much similarity. Considering the concept of evolution in the Standard Model (with the great number of cosmological models having formed it), we can note the following: 1. The Standard Model relies on consideration of the structure of space and time, and the regular formation of substances, fields and their derivatives. That is, it tries to recreate exclusively Physical Reality, as the correlation of “objective reality” (physical world) with the content of the categories of the subject and object of knowledge. Currently, in the methodology of modern physical knowledge, Physical Reality is understood as three closely interconnected realities “Objective Reality” (the physical world), “Empirical Reality” (the observed or experimental) and “Theoretical Reality” (the world of constructs, theories and models). Thus, in the Standard Model of evolution we see the regular formation of substances, fields and their derivatives. 2. In modern cosmological models there is no clear separation of the factors of evolution. For example, in the theory of British physicist James Jeans Hallwood, he identified the main factor in the evolution of the Universe to be gravitational instability: matter cannot be distributed with a constant density in any volume [Hramov, 1983]. In the Standard Model Lambda-CDM the major factors of evolution are the accelerated expansion of the Universe and the spontaneous creation of space-time metrics. 3. In cosmology, the division of evolution is accepted to involve: 1) evolution in a microcosm, which is considered by quantum physics and its main theories – quantum mechanics and quantum field theory; 2) evolution in a macrocosm, which is described by the general theory of relativity and other pre-quantum theories. To create a theory that combines evolution in both a microcosm and a macrocosm has not proven possible yet. 4. The Standard Model postulates the absolute dynamic dominance of the exotic states of matter – vacuum-like dark energy and non-baryonic cold dark matter. This led to the main parameters of cosmological models being determined by substances of unknown origin, and the observed substances in conventional forms (stars, gas, and dust) account for only a small

14

Chapter Two

fraction of the total mass density. To explain the observed structures in the framework of the Standard Model, the dominant hidden mass in nonbaryonic form and also in a cosmological vacuum are added [Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013]. Moreover, as was noted by Iliana Vladlenova, the model of chaotic inflation, which is used by a significant number of physicists, manifests itself in the presence of an infinite number of other Universes that occur in a scalar field, in different areas, at different times, forming a space-time foam; so-called “entrances” in the tunnels that exist in the initial scalar field and connect different areas of the Universe and other Universes that are not found. Moreover, for the existence of wormholes, matter is required to have an unusual equation of state, such matter is only a hypothesis [Bazaluk & Vladlenova, 2013]. 5. In the Standard Model, there is no clear answer about the causes of evolution. There is a general understanding of the “Big Bang”, “inflation”, “point singularity”, actions of the definite laws, fundamental constants, etc. However, all these “scraps” of knowledge and assumptions only postulate and allow for a definite amount of meanings which are often presented as “the absolute truth”. None of the existing cosmological models is able to articulate and justify the greatest factors and causes of the evolution of the Universe at the scale of Cosmology. The reason for the evolution of the Universe is the movement of matter, which follows on from the facts of the “Big Bang”, or inflation. In cosmology, any movement involves physical interaction. Physical interactions occur as movements of matter, and any movement can include various types of interaction. There is no movement in which there would not be any interaction, as there is no interaction without movement. The interaction and movement are the forms of existence of matter. Physical interactions are transmitted by physical fields with the ultimate speed not exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. At present, in cosmology there are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. 6. In the Standard Model, evolution is divided into “early” and “late” evolution of the Universe, i.e. into Pre-matter evolution and Matter evolution of the Universe. In cosmology the concept of matter is defined clearly.

The Concept of Evolution in the Modern Scientific Theories

15

Evolution of the “early” (Pre-matter) Universe is evolution of a space vacuum. As recorded by the well-known Russian cosmologist Arthur Chernin, though a vacuum is called cosmic, it is present everywhere and appears as it does in the physics of elementary particles, as well as in nuclear physics, where it is the lowest energy state of quantum fields [Chernin, 2001]. The interaction of elementary particles which manifest experimentally happens only in a vacuum, such as the Lamb shift of the spectrum lines of atom, and the Casimir effect. Evolution of the “late” (Matter) Universe is evolution of substance and field. Speaking about substances as a rule, we tend to talk about only one form of matter which manifests itself directly, affected by the properties of the objects around us. However, there is a second type of matter – the field of physical variables, manifesting properties in physical measures by instruments. The possibility of combining substance and field in the concept of “matter” is explained by permissibility of the introduction in both cases of single characteristics as a mass, having the properties of inertia and gravity simultaneously. Therefore, considering the evolution of the “late” Universe, we speak about evolution of matter (the Material World), i.e., evolution of substance and field. 7. Recently in cosmology a lot of scientists have been inclined to adopt the view that the Big Bang is not the First Principle, and is the intermediate stage of evolution: the transition from one state of substance and field to another (for example, Leonid Grinin [Grinin, 2013], Akop Nazaretyan [Nazaretyan, 2013] and others). 8. The Standard Model does not consider evolution of living substances (in the terminology of Vernadsky) and the biosphere for separate cosmic objects. The factors and causes of the evolution of the Universe do not correlate with the factors and causes of biological evolution. Accordingly, the Standard Model does not take into account the co-evolution of the cosmos and biosphere (perhaps, Cosmic biospheres), nor the degree of influence of the latter on the evolution of the Universe. Having said that, some research confirms the idea of abiogenesis – the regular transition of evolution of the Universe in biological evolution (for example Vernadsky’s ideas about the biosphere, or Gaia J. Lovelock’s hypothesis which reveals the close relationship of the geological evolution of cosmic objects with the evolution of Living Matter).

16

Chapter Two

II. The Concept of Evolution in Biology As opposed to cosmology, in biology, evolution is not considered in models. In our opinion, this is due to the insufficient mathematization of biology, as well as the abundance of factual material that does not require formalization and replacement. If, in cosmology, a deficit of empirical material contributes to the growth of theoretical models that fight for the right to be dominant in the Standard Model, then in biology, in recent decades only one theory has been dominant. Biological evolution is represented by the synthetic theory of evolution, which was able to unite most of the accumulated factual materials available. Only in seeking to answer certain questions (for example, questions of the systematic development of common environmental concepts, paleontology, embryology, etc.), do alternative theories (for example, Lev Berg [Berg, 1977], Yuri Filipchenko [Filipchenko, 1977] Alexander Lyubishchev [Lyubishchev, 1982] and others) oppose the synthetic theory of evolution. On the whole, the synthetic theory reveals the factors and causes of biological evolution at the scale of Earth. What meaning is ascribed by biologists to the concept of evolution? 1. It should be noted that biologists have established the meaning of the concept of evolution and separated it from the concept of “development”. From the point of view of biology, “development” is a more fundamental concept, denoting the processes that are aimed at improvement. For example, the famous English zoologist Peter Calow writes: “...development is a systematized process that is largely able to exhibit violating resistance, exerted on it “from the outside” (e.g., experimental effects) or from “the inside” (e.g., mutations)” [Calow, 1986: p.94]. Such development can be evolutionary and revolutionary. Evolutionary development involves gradual, successive changes; revolutionary development involves precipitous, rapid changes. Biological evolution, however, is a natural process by which animate nature develops accompanied by a change in the gene pool of the populations, and the formation of adaptation, speciation and extinction processes of species occur, as well as the transformation of the ecosystems and biosphere themselves, as a whole. 2. In the 19th and 20th centuries, in biology the concepts of the “factor” and “cause” of evolution were developed and defined. Summarizing a vast

The Concept of Evolution in the Modern Scientific Theories

17

amount of the research material on this problem, Kirill Zawadzki and Eduard Kolchinsky offer that a “factor” of evolution refers to “...any part (side, component, element) of the substratum, conditions or the driving force of evolution, which is considered in the process of its study. A factor of evolution can be any relatively discrete process, or a feature of the organization of life, if it is involved in interactions, causing irreversible adaptive transformation of the populations” [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977: p.29]. For the concept of a “cause” of evolution, Zawadzki and Kolchinsky understand “...the interaction of all factors of evolution, not only necessary and sufficient for the implementation of the evolutionary process, but, moreover, the factors which have an influence on this process from the outside, and cause, for example, a change in its tempo, or a change in the direction of parrying (protective) devices, an increase in the overall system reliability, etc.” [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977: p.29]. As a result of numerous discussions, at present, biologists distinguish between four main factors of evolution: the mutation process, population waves, isolation and natural selection [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977]. Among the main causes of evolution, Zawadzki and Kolchinsky single out the struggle for existence, and natural selection [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977: p.44]. 3. In biology, evolution is considered principally at the scale of Earth’s geological evolution, following in the tideway of a bygone era of geocentrism (from the Greek īો, īĮ૙Į – Earth). In contrast to cosmologists who boldly extrapolate scant facts regarding the different parts of the Universe, most biologists consider abiogenesis and biological evolution in isolation from the evolution of the cosmos, and deny the fact of the existence of other Cosmic biospheres. The synthetic theory does not suggest extrapolation to other cosmic objects, and accordingly, does not give predictions concerning evolution variants of biological organisms at the scale of the cosmos. 4. The synthetic theory of evolution does not consider abiogenesis as a regular stage of the evolution of the cosmos arising from the Standard Model of the Universe. Moreover, the synthetic theory of evolution in the modern formulation admits two variants of the origin of life on Earth: a) Panspermia is a hypothesis about the origin of life on Earth as a result of the distribution, from outer space, of microscopic life forms. With this

18

Chapter Two

hypothesis, there is a correlation to the principle of the famous Italian doctor and naturalist of the seventeenth century, Francesco Redi: that living organisms can only be born from living organisms. This principle was laid-down by Vladimir Vernadsky in the basis of his research about the biosphere [Vernadsky 1975; Vernadsky, 1977; Vernadsky, 1977; Vernadsky, 1987; Vernadsky, 2002]. b) Abiogenesis is the transformation of non-living nature into a living, for example, through a transitional state – bioinert substance. Scientific studies of the 20th century laid a strong evidence base on this hypothesis. We can note the research works of: the Soviet biologist and biochemist Alexander Oparin [Oparin, 1968; Oparin, 1977]; English biologist, and one of the founders of the synthetic theory of evolution, John Haldane; the British physicist and sociologist of science John Desmond Bernal [Bernal, 1956; Bernal, 1969]; American biochemist Sidney Walter Fox [Fox &Dose, 1975]; American biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Melvin Calvin [Calvin, 1971]; Nobel Prize winning American physicist and physical chemist Harold Clayton Urey, and many other scientists. 5. The synthetic theory admits the influence of the cosmos on the evolution of the biosphere. Herewith, it does not investigate the effect of feedback – the evolving biosphere’s effect on the evolution of star systems and galaxies, i.e., on the cosmic processes. Focusing on the study of biosphere as a planetary force, the synthetic theory of evolution excludes the study of biosphere as a cosmic force, influencing the development of the cosmos. 6. In biology, as well as in cosmology, microevolution and macroevolution are considered. The term microevolution is usually understood as the totality of transformations of populations, occurring even within species; macroevolution is the process of the formation of large systematic units: of the types – new genera, of genera – new families, etc. In contrast to cosmology, in which the evolution of Microcosms and Macrocosms are considered as separate, irreducible (incompatible) theories, in biology, micro- and macro-evolution is considered as one theory – the synthetic theory of evolution. Moreover, after lengthy discussions, biologists came to the conclusion that in principle, micro- and macroevolution are a uniform process with the common factors and causes of evolution. Kirill Zawadzki and Eduard Kolchinsky summarized that the study of microevolution is the foundation of cognition of the causes of macroevolution [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977].

The Concept of Evolution in the Modern Scientific Theories

19

7. The synthetic theory considers the evolution of Man and Society within its competence. According to the theory, co-evolution of nature and society is limited by the planetary scale and explained by the laws of organization of the biosphere. From the point of view of the synthetic theory of evolution, the development of the biosphere and the noosphere is carried out under the same laws and within one (biological) evolutionary theory.

III. The Concept of Evolution in Noogenesis From our point of view, to consider the concept of evolution at the scale of human society (socium), it is more convenient to use the concept of noogenesis. The concept of noogenesis was first brought into scientific use in 1955 by the eminent French anthropologist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin [Teilhard de Chardin, 1955; Semenova, 2009]. Unfortunately, he did not give a clear definition of this concept, thus in the following decades the concept took on not only contradictory meanings, but was also substituted by other concepts, such as “anthropogenesis”, “cephalization”, “neuroevolution”, “social evolution”, etc. In our view, etymologically, the concept of noogenesis is more suitable to all-encompassing evolution of the mind, the technosphere, society and culture, both in the global and cosmic scales. Therefore, looking ahead, we will not only rely on the initial meaning, but also fill it with modern scientific and philosophical argumentation, freeing it from fuzzy theistic debates. Unfortunately, until now, many dictionaries, reference books and other information resources interpret noogenesis as part of biological evolution (e.g., Yuriy Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006]). In some sources, when considering the evolution of Man and Society, neuroevolution is not mentioned, only sociocultural evolution is written about. Other sources are passed over silent even about sociocultural evolution, and much is said about the evolution of technology, the third type of sources are only about paleontological excavations and the evolution of morphology, as if Man fundamentally has no other differences from animals. In the early 20th century, the famous Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin wrote that “...all the interacting centres and all the processes of interaction can be divided into three basic forms: 1) “non-organic”, interacting centres and the interaction of the physical and chemical (the

20

Chapter Two

inorganic world) are studied by physical and chemical sciences; 2) living “organic”, interacting centres and the interaction of the biological (the organic world, the phenomena of life) are studied by biological sciences; 3) Finally, the interacting centres that are gifted by psyche, consciousness, and mental interaction, that is, the exchange of ideas, feelings and volitional acts (the phenomenon of culture, the social world) are studied by social sciences” [Sorokin, 1992: p.28]. In Chapter 7 we will give, from our point of view, sufficiently convincing argumentation concerning a fallacy in the consideration of noogenesis at the scale of biological evolution. Not only Pitirim Sorokin, but also a pleiad of scientists, representing various scientific disciplines, believe that the evolution of society is a qualitatively new stage in the development of the Material World (e.g. the research works of K. Tsiolkovsky, V. Vernadsky, A. Chizhevsky, N. Holodny, P. Teilhard de Chardin, V.Kaznacheev, L. Gumilyov, N. Moiseyev, B. Porshnev, A. Maneev, B. Kordyum, L. Leskova, S. Haitun, A. Ursul, A. Nazaretyan, S. Krichevsky and many others). They believe that noogenesis should be considered as neuroevolution (evolution of mind), and as a sociocultural evolution, and as an evolution of technology (technosphere). Let us consider the concept of evolution in noogenesis: 1. In noogenesis the concept of evolution is considered, at least, in three forms: a) As neuroevolution. In neuroevolution the emphasis is on the research of the development of neurons, neuronal populations, the nervous system and neural ensembles. Neuroevolution is a new direction in the study of the evolutionary process, barely numbering two decades of active research, so speaking about the notable achievements in neuroevolution, especially against the backdrop of the achievements of the Standard Model of the Universe and the synthetic theory of evolution, is not necessary. Over the past decade, in our opinion, the main association was with neuroevolution – namely, the evolution of Man and Society. b) As sociocultural evolution (evolution of society). The history of research into sociocultural evolution dates back a few thousand years, and it started from the philosophy of ancient India, to the modern large-scaled generalizations of Samuel Huntington [Huntington, 2003; Huntington, 2003a] or Fernand Braudel [Braudel, 2008]. In this case, there is a shift

The Concept of Evolution in the Modern Scientific Theories

21

towards the researching of external manifestations of human activity. In the sciences that are closely regarding Man, the ideas about prevalence are beginning to dominate over processes of neuroevolution in the common thought about the evolution of the civilization of external conditions. c) As evolution of technologies (evolution of the technosphere, scientific and technological progress). The history of research into the evolution of technology began in the first half of the 20th century. Among the main works we can note research by Stanisáaw Lem [Lem, 2002], John Naisbitt [Naisbitt, 2005], Vyacheslav Stepin [Stepin & Kuznetsova, 1994], Francis Fukuyama [Fukuyama, 2004; Fukuyama, 2004a; Fukuyama, 2004b] and others. When considering the evolution of technology, the research accent is now shifting towards the development of artificial, high-tech products that provide a person with more qualitative and larger-scale selfrealization in ontogeny. 2. In modern scientific literature there is no accepted unified theory of noogenesis, as well as the theories of neuroevolution, sociocultural evolution and the evolution of technology. There are several variants of the model of sociocultural evolution (for example, models by Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Lewis-Henri Morgan, Emile Durkheim, Leslie White, Julian Steward, Daniel Bell etc.), but they were also far from perfection at least, in their reasoning, that did not take into account the main stages of neuroevolution. In our opinion, it is impossible to create an effective model of the external manifestations of neuroevolution without correlating it with the main stages of evolution of the human brain. Moreover, some scientists have made attempts to construct evolution models of technologies (e.g. descriptive models by Stanisáaw Lem, Sergey Krichevsky, Eduard Vitol, a model of technocenosis by Boris Kudrin, and many others). They are also, from our point of view, far from perfection, because they do not consider the results of research into neuroevolution and sociocultural evolution. 3. The concept of evolution in noogenesis, as well as in the synthetic theory continues to be considered within the framework of anthropocentrism and geocentrism. It is only accumulating the empirical material for further large-scale generalizations; noogenesis does not take into account regularity of the origin of Man at the scale of Earth. Noogenesis does not consider Man as continuing the evolution of the

22

Chapter Two

Universe, and a biosphere of a separate cosmic object can greatly distort the interpretation of the empirical results. 4. Due to the lack of an holistic understanding of noogenesis, the concept of evolution within it is understood in different ways: in the models of neuroevolution – in the traditions of the synthetic theory of evolution; in models of sociocultural evolution and evolution of technology – in the traditions of cosmology as development. 5. Accordingly, in noogenesis there is no uniform understanding of the factors and causes of evolution. So, besides the biological factors and causes of evolution that were considered by us, in noogenesis there are also social factors of evolution: labor, thought, speech, communication, etc. Unanimity and specifics are not involved with this problem. 6. As in previous scientific theories of evolution, noogenesis marked out microevolution – neuroevolution and macroevolution – sociocultural evolution and evolution of technology. However, if in biology micro- and macro-evolution are considered within one theory as a uniform interdependent process, then in noogenesis these concepts are separated: the factors and causes of neuroevolution are considered as the biological factors and causes; sociocultural evolution is considered as the social factors and causes; and the factors and causes of the evolution of technology are the economic, scientific and social factors and causes. For the most part in scientific literature, Man and Society, from the world of biological organisms, was considered according to the factors and causes of sociocultural evolution and the evolution of technology. Thus, we examined the concept of evolution in the basic scientific evolutionary theories of cosmology, biology and noogenesis.

CHAPTER THREE THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION IN PHILOSOPHY

Philosophical methodology, for a variety of reasons, is much richer in choice and freer in actions than scientific methodology. It allows for the consideration of evolution as in the models of cosmology, and on the basis of the richness of available factual material, also as in the models of biology. It also can extrapolate scientific facts to the distant past and the future, unify interdisciplinary achievements, make predictions which would have put an end to the career of any scientist, and do many other things that could be forgiven only in philosophy – the queen of the sciences. After all, like it or not, the history of philosophy lasts over one thousand years, and the history of science has only a few hundred years to look back upon. Philosophers and philosophy have made a significant contribution to the semantic enrichment of the concept of evolution in cosmology, biology and noogenesis. For examples, see: Murad Akhundov [Akhundov, 1982; Akhundov, 1982a], Vadim Kazyutinsky [Kazyutinsky, 1986; Kazyutinsky, 1986], Arkady Ursul [Ursul, 1993; Ursul, 2013; Ursul & Ursul, 2014], Alexander Mostepanenko [Mostepanenko, 1987] and many others in cosmology; Igor Akchurin [Akchurin, 1974], Kirill Zawadzki [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977], Regina Karpinskaya [Philosophy of Biology, 1996], Eduard Kolchinsky [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977] and others in biology; and Alexander Gryaznov [Gryaznov, 2006; Gryaznov, 2009], Alexey Maneev [Maneev, 1971], Nikita Moiseev [Moiseev, 1990; Moiseev, 1999], Boris Porshnev [Porshnev, 1974] and others in noogenesis. However, whilst paying tribute to the contribution of philosophers, we must admit that the main influence on the development of meanings in scientific evolutionary models still belongs to the specialists. Philosophers may have broadened and deepened the concept of evolution, but only the leading specialists in their fields have determined it further, and filled it with specifics. For example, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and others in cosmology; Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Charles Darwin, Gregor

24

Chapter Three

Mendel and others in biology; and Vladimir Bekhterev, Ivan Pavlov, Santiago Ramón y Cajal and others in noogenesis. In our view, the area in which philosophy is really unique, inimitable and unmatched, and what establishes it as the science of sciences, is its consideration of universals – general concepts that allow one to cover the process of the evolution of the world generally, and the subsequent building upon the basis of universal theories. A rather deep historical and philosophical analysis of universal theories, hypotheses and concepts of the past two or three decades was carried out in the works of: Russian futurist Eduard Vitol [Vitol, 2012; Vitol, 2012a], Alexander Markov [Markov & Kulikov, 2009; Markov, 2010], Sergey Haytun [Haytun, 2005; Haytun, 2006], Yury Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006] and others. The philosophical universal theories form a world view of all generations of human society, laying the foundation for the relationship of people to the world of nature and the cosmos. Philosophical universal theories of evolution with time are either: 1) confirmed by science, as is the case, for example, with the cosmological models which transform into the format of scientific theories of evolution, partially embodied in practice; 2) or come into conflict with scientific facts, and are intermediate milestones in the history of philosophy. In philosophy (in postpositivism) there is a whole new direction – fallibilism (fallibilism from lat. fallibilis – fallible, fallibility. Ideas that developed fallibilism came from: Charles Sanders Peirce, Karl Popper, Willard Van Orman Quine and others), according to which any scientific knowledge is not fundamentally final. It is only an intermediate interpretation of truth, which means the subsequent replacement of the current best interpretation. Therefore, according to fallibilism, even scientific and philosophical theories that were disproved can play an important role, filling in meanings in the overall concept of evolution. If we turn to the history of the concept of evolution in philosophy, we find that its original meaning began to form in the depths of theistic (religious) universal theories. Despite the fact that in ancient cosmogony – the ancient Indian and ancient Chinese religious teachings of the structure of the Universe which arose a few thousand years ago – the concept of evolution was not only used, but was also antagonistic to the content of the proposed religious theories. In the theistic theories, evolution was presented as an incomprehensible supernatural (divine) force that once created the world and left it unchanged. Until now, the theistic theories, with great difficulty

The Concept of Evolution in Philosophy

25

and reservations, recognize the fact of the development of the Universe. In their theories the Universe is stationary and unchanging. Even in non-theistic philosophical theories of the structure of the Universe, which originated later than theistic ones, but for a long time coexisted with them, the concept of evolution was considered as a given, as a creature, a “divine” (supernatural) force. For example, in the Pythagorean system of the Universe it is said: “Concerning the position of Earth, opinions of philosophers are distinct. However, most of the philosophers who believe the sky is limited, they placed Earth in the middle. Otherwise, Italian philosophers, Pythagoreans believe that in the middle there is the fire, and Earth revolves around it like a star, due to this the changes of day and night happen...” [Baev, 1935: p.112]. Over the years of its existence a number of transformations happened (including theoretical and practical studies of Plato, Aristotle, Eudoxus, Aristarchus, Apollonius, Hipparchus and others), and the Pythagorean system in the II century AD developed into the geocentric system of the Universe – grandiose for its time and theoretically perfect in the ancient universal theory of evolution. Geocentricism, corroborated by the authoritative groundworks of the philosophical schools of Plato and Aristotle, remained dominant in the human perception of the world for more than two thousand years! All of this is worth only one “Almagest” by Claudius Ptolemy, which includes a broad range of astronomical knowledge of Greece and the Middle East, prior to the II century AD (“The great mathematical treatise on astronomy in 13 books” or, briefly, “Megiste” (Gk. “Megistos” - the greatest). Arabs who had brought this work to Europe named it “Almagest”, its origins were roughly 140 years before that). Certain parts of this classic work of the late Hellenistic era were in scientific demand, rather impressively, until the 19th century [Baev, 1935]. In the geocentric theory of the structure of the Universe, the concept of evolution was not yet used. The Universe remained stationary and unchanged, and Earth itself was the center of the Universe. In the geocentric theory, “divine” force was dominant, and for the word “development” one could be burnt at the stake as a heretic. However, according to the studies of Konstantine Baev [Baev, 1935], Igor Dmitriev [Dmitriev, 2006] and Yuri Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006], in this period of time the natural-philosophical works were published, in which, along with the recognition of the stationary Universe and the domination

26

Chapter Three

of supernatural forces, the facts of the development of the Universe and its components were recognized (for example, in the works by William Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicholas Orem and many others). In the Renaissance period, the studies of Purbach, Regiomontanus and some other astronomers of the 15th and 16th centuries paved the way for an entirely new understanding of the Universe – Heliocentrism. Aiming to improve Claudius Ptolemy’s geocentric system, canonized by the Church, a Polish canon Nicolaus Copernicus returned to the consideration of the proposed idea of the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos in the IV century BC. The study about “A Rotation (or Rotations) of the Celestial Spheres” (lat. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) was published in 1543 in Nuremberg, Copernicus scientifically substantiated Earth’s rotation around the Sun and around its own axis, and that the Moon was a satellite of Earth and therefore rotates around it. The research of Copernicus refuted the key elements of the geocentric theory of Ptolemy. From the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century, on the basis of heliocentrism, a new theory of perception of the world arose, in which the development of the Universe was first talked about – cosmogony by KantLaplace [Smotritskii, 1999]. At the source of the basic elements of cosmogony by Kant-Laplace were the key figures of philosophy and science at the time: Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others. These scientists formulated and defended their point of view, according to which the selfdevelopment of matter occurs under the laws of nature, and first of all, gravitational interaction. It should be noted that the self-development of matter, or autogenesis, is a concept, a definite period of time prevailing in science and philosophy. It seeks to explain the development of wildlife effecting on an organism only by internal intangible factors (the “principle of perfection”, “growth-force”, “bathmism”), without taking into account the impact of external factors. Ideas of autogenesis were developed by Karl Ernst von Baer, Albert von Kölliker, Lev Berg, Edward ɋɨɪɟ, Juri Filipchenko and others. From the middle of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century, after the works of Ludwig Boltzmann, Rudolf Clausius and other scientists, after the recognition and wide usage of the laws of thermodynamics, the model of the Universe began to be considered as the evolving model. In the 20th century, originally scientific and philosophical ideas about the evolution of the Universe passed from empirical understanding to the stage of physical-

The Concept of Evolution in Philosophy

27

mathematical reasoning. Based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the Russian mathematician and physicist Alexander Fridman mathematically grounded three real scenarios of the development of the Universe. Later, the famous British astronomer Fred Hoyle, and the Soviet-American physicist George Gamow, in mutually supportive pictures of nucleosynthesis, showed that the scenario of “the expanding Universe” fully conformed to the results of astrophysical observations. To describe the evolving structure of our Universe (modern science only predicts the existence of other Universes), astrophysicists use two basic particular theories: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It should be noted that in the 20th century known physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists carried out numerous attempts to integrate the achievements of the synthetic theory of evolution and noogenesis in developmental, cosmological models, and thus lead the latter to the level of universal theories. A wide response was caused by interdisciplinary studies of evolution, from Erwin Schrödinger [Schrödinger, 1947; Schrödinger, 1971; Schrödinger, 1986; Schrödinger, 2006], Roger Penrose [Penrose, 1972; Penrose, 2003; Penrose, 2005], Carl Sagan [Sagan, 1986; Sagan, 2005], Iosif Shklovsky [Shklovsky, 1977; Shklovsky, 1982; Shklovsky, 1987] and many others. However, in our view, the philosophers, in virtue of certain features of their world view, could not make a decisive contribution to the development of the scientific theory of evolution, and “philosophizing physicists” were far from an understanding of the universals of evolution and the construction of universal theories. To understand the modern level of the development of the concept of evolution and universal theories in philosophy, we should go back to the first quarter of the 20th century, when the background of the celebration of science and scientific methodology, philosophical ideas and relation to the subject of philosophy was in deep crisis. This happened after the cosmological theories of evolution had been developed by philosophy for several centuries. They began to be confirmed by scientific experiments and acquired the status of scientific theories. Philosophy lost the status of “science of sciences”, because the science of the early 20th century believed that it could now cope with the establishment of universals and the construction, on their basis, of universal, all-encompassing theories of evolution. Many eminent physicists and cosmologists tried to assume the role of Messiahs, and formulated universal theories that could lay the foundations for the uniform understanding of the evolution of the cosmos,

28

Chapter Three

biological and social life. Philosophy and philosophers were only in the margins of the cognitive process. Just at the peak of the triumph of science and the scientific world view, from the late 19th to the early 20th century in Russia, a new direction in philosophy emerged – the philosophy of Russian Cosmism. Russian cosmists asked a number of global questions: about the place and role of Man in the Universe, about the meaning of human being, its objectives and ways to achieve them, about the relationship of macrocosms and microcosms, about the responsibility of mind created by God and converted by Man. The most prominent representatives of Russian Cosmism are: Nikolai Fedorov, Pavel Florensky, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Alexander Chizhevsky, Daniil Andreev, Konstantin Wentzel, Helena Roerich, Nicholas Roerich, Vladimir Solovyov and others. Without going into serious scientific debate, in everyday life in popular scientific language they started to talk about the integration of Man and the whole sphere of his existence in space, about the close link between evolution of the cosmos, nature and society, due to which one can talk about the cosmic evolution of man. In-depth reviews of the ideas of Russian Cosmism are represented in the studies of the family of ascetics, (the “mother” and “daughter”) of philosophy of Russian Cosmism, and the organizers of numerous conferences, seminars and round tables on the topic of the same name: Svetlana Semenova [Semenova, 2004; Semenova, 2009; Semenova, 2012] and Anastasia Gacheva [Russian Cosmism, 1993]. The ideas of Russian Cosmism, their “simplicity” and “unscientific” nature certainly were fading against the background of the triumph of cosmological models which were written by complicated mathematical language. They were not given proper development in the world of philosophy, and perhaps would have remained unnoticed in the history of philosophy if they had not been noticed in the studies of the outstanding Russian thinker Vladimir Vernadsky [Vernadsky, 1975; Vernadsky, 1977; Vernadsky, 1978; Vernadsky, 1987; Vernadsky, 2002] and also in the works of his students and followers (among which were: academician Alexander Fersman, academician Alexander Vinogradov, Lev Selivanov, Vitaliy Khlopin, Yakov Samoilov, Sergey Kurbatov and many others. Information

The Concept of Evolution in Philosophy

29

about the students and associates of Vernadsky can be found on the website: http://vernadsky.name/category/bio/ucheniki-i-spodvizhniki/). Much was written about the significance of Vernadsky’s research to global science, and more will be written [Balandin, 1988; Kaznacheev, 1989; Drobzhev, 2010]. However, in our opinion, in the creative heritage of Vernadsky and his research, consequent visions of the evolution of our Universe are inexcusably underestimated [Bazaluk, 2006; Bazaluk, 2007]. Vladimir Vernadsky had never dealt with the construction of cosmological models, but his generalization of the geological and biological chronicles of Earth is equal to a simulation at the scale of a separate cosmic object. Vernadsky always considered processes and phenomena occurring on Earth in the context of active interaction with the cosmos [Kaznacheev, 1989]. The value of Vernadsky’s ideas and those of his followers, which were based on Charles Lyell’s ideas (which themselves are no less fundamental and important for understanding evolution), lay in the fact they were the first that showed regular connections between geological and biological evolution. Firstly, Vladimir Vernadsky scientifically proved that not only the Universe evolved (in his terminology – Inert Matter). Having taken as the basis, a space vacuum (quantum fluctuations) under the influence of certain physical and chemical processes, Inert Matter, through a transitional state, acquires a qualitatively new structure and functions – Living Matter, at the same time it is continuing to evolve in its primary state. That is, having reached a certain inner perfection, one state of matter transitions logically into another that on the one hand, is a certain hierarchy of the previous (“mother”) state of matter and continues to evolve in complete dependence of it, but on the other hand, creates a basis (space) for deployment of a qualitative new (“daughter”) state of matter. In the 1970s, 50 years after the first studies by Vernadsky about the biosphere, the British environmentalist James Lovelock, (unfortunately with no reference to Vernadsky’s works) on the basis of the latest achievements in geology, geochemistry and biogeochemistry, offered his Gaia hypothesis, which had many similarities with Vernadsky’s teachings about the biosphere [Kaku, 2008]. At present, the ideas of Vernadsky and Lovelock disclose entirely the stages of planetary evolution, including the transition of geological evolution into biological evolution, followed by the co-evolution of these two processes.

30

Chapter Three

The ideas of the philosophy of Russian Cosmism had a significant impact on the development of Soviet science and on the understanding of the process of evolution [Russian cosmism, 1993]. For example, they found reflection in the cosmological models (such as the models proposed by Iosif Shklovsky [Shklovsky, 1977; Shklovsky, 1982; Shklovsky, 1987], Lev Gindilis [Gindilis, 2004] and many others), in biological evolution models (e.g., Nikolai Kholodny [Kholodny, 1970], Vladimir Levchenko [Levchenko, 2003; Levchenko, 2012], Alexey Yablokov [Yablokov & Yusufov, 1981; Yablokov, 1987] and others), and in noogenesis (e.g. Vlail Kaznacheev [Kaznacheev, 1989], Leonid Leskov [Leskov, 1996; Leskov, 2003; Leskov, 2008], Alexander Subetto [Subetto, 2006] and others). The ideas of the philosophy of Russian Cosmism indirectly influenced the development of Soviet science, and directly influenced the development of science fiction and its understanding of the universals of evolution and universal theories. In our opinion, significant and defining for enrichment of meaning of the concept of evolution and the development of universal theories, are science fiction novels by Ivan Efremov, Alexander Zinoviev, Stanisáaw Lem, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Bruce Sterling and many others. Qualitatively, the concept of evolution in philosophy reached new heights with works on Universal History (Big History). According to the expert in Universal History, Leonid Grinin, the term “Big History” means the history of all: from the origin of the Universe to the present state of humanity. “This is a very effective way to cover the huge and diverse material which is built along the lines of consistent growth of complexity of the organization as a chain of the most important events of the development of the cosmos, life and society” [Grinin, 2013: p.2]. Universal History was developed as a whole direction at the beginning of the 1990s, when the concepts of evolutionary cosmology received widespread recognition, and clear continuity in the development of the cosmos, Earth, life and society was also noted, which were indirectly reflected in the anthropic principle. Distinguishing the concept of evolution as the emergence of fundamentally new and unique definitions (parameters, categories and systems etc.) which did not exist before, from “development” as the emergence of the new, previously not inherent to a certain system of signs as they were not unique for the Universe as a whole, the followers of Universal History

The Concept of Evolution in Philosophy

31

suggested that evolution of the Universe was unfolding in stages, approximately in two mega-phases (“sleeves” of evolution of the Universe). In the first phase, which lasted from the Big Bang and the initial collapse of the Quark-gluon plasma till the formation of stars and their synthesis in the bowels of heavy elements, the processes of selforganization did not require an external energy source. Evolution that was happening was seen to be slowing-down: the time intervals between the emergences of qualitatively new structures consistently increased. However, the emergence of heavy elements changed the mechanism of self-organization: for their compound, in contrast to compounds of light elements the energy was required “from the outside”. It led to the second mega-phase of Universal evolution, which includes prebiological chemical processes, and the emergence of life and society. It began a phase of active competition for sources of free energy, interaction between the complex formations acquired new dimensions and the slowing-down of historical time was replaced by steady acceleration. A notable contribution to the development of Universal (Big) History was made by Russian scientists Akop Nazaretyan [Nazaretyan, 2013], Alexander Panov, Leonid Grinin [Grinin, 2013], and Eduard Kulpin etc. In our view, the usage of Universal History and the development of its key elements is a necessary measure, indicating the inability of scientific theories to go beyond the narrow confines of their methodologies and embrace unity and the evolution of substance and field. Whatever perfection can be reached by scientific theories (models) of evolution, without philosophy and its methodology, they are not able to combine the factors and causes of evolution studied in cosmology, biology and noogenesis to universals, nor build upon their basis a Universal theory of evolution.

PART II BASICS OF THE THEORY “EVOLVING MATTER”

CHAPTER FOUR THE UNIVERSALS OF EVOLUTION

The analysis of the concept of evolution in scientific theories (cosmology, biology and noogenesis) and in philosophy carried out in the first part of this work showed the differences in the definitions of evolution and in the understanding of its factors and causes. However, in our opinion, these differences are not fundamental in their nature. For the most part they are caused by the use of different methods and approaches in research, as well as by intra-scientific conjuncture. Working on the universal model “Evolving Matter”, the author came to the following conclusions: 1) Evolution is complication. It is not “development”, not “evolution”, it is complication. 2) When we speak about evolution as complication, we do not mean just complication of the Material World. For us, evolution is complication of the structure of matter and types of interaction and environments, though in the unity and struggle of opposites. Speaking about evolution as complication of the Universe, the author means complication of three components of physical reality: 1) the structure of matter; 2) types of interaction (relations) between the structures of matter; 3) environments, in which complication of these structures and interactions are carried out, and which, to a varying degree, determine environmental characteristics. The complication of three components of physical reality occurs according to the law of dialectics established by Friedrich Engels – the law of the unity and conflict of opposites: The movement and development in nature, society and thinking, due to the split single interpenetrating opposites and a resolution of the contradictions which arise between them through the struggle [Marx & Engels, Vol. 20, 1961]. 3) The factors and causes of the evolution of scientific and philosophical theories can be unified and reduced to the definite universals of evolution, if it is assumed that they are variative. That is, in our view, evolution is

36

Chapter Four

complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments, which is carried out by virtue of complication of the factors and causes of evolution. We speak about Evolution of Evolution or complication of complication [Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977]. In evolution seen as complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments, the author distinguished three main factors and two causes, which through their variability (ability to complicate) form a certain number of hierarchies as in the observable Universe and beyond.

I. Enumerating the Factors of Evolution: 1) Evolution in our Universe is a continuous process. Continuous complication, or more specifically, continuous self-complication is caused by an initial activity which was laid in the foundation of evolution as its cause. Various aspects and manifestations of this factor of evolution were laid down in the concepts of autogenesis, nomogenesis, autopoiesis, etc. The basic works in this direction can be seen as the works by Karl Ernst von Baer [Baer, 1950; From the Epistolary Heritage, 1978], Albert von Kölliker, Lev Berg [Berg, 1977], Edward ɋɨɪɟ, Yuri Filipchenko [Filipchenko, 1977; Golubovskiy, 2000] and others. From our point of view, continuous self-complication as a factor of evolution is aided by two important factors: Ⱥ) Continuous complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments is carried out, thanks to a great number of acceptable combinations of the initial and subsequent (formed) elements. Interestingly though, continuous self-complication is carried, thanks to block combination. Namely, thanks to the possibility of various combinations within the elements of the structures of different complications, in the course of evolution new structures of matter, types of interaction and environments are formed, which can be involved at once in new combinations. Combinations, permutations, arrangements and the enumeration of a great number of discrete elements in the structures, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter lead to a variety of structures and functions, which are subordinated to a single aim – to be consolidated, at any price, in the same state of continuous complication as their environments.

The Universals of Evolution

37

In science, the idea of forming diversity in the Universe by combining some elements has a long history. It went back to Empedocles, who believed that at first, different parts of animals emerged which later joined together in various combinations. In 1666, the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz published his work “On the Art of Combination”, in which was laid the foundation of combinatorial analysis – a branch of mathematics concerning the study of discrete elements, sets and relations to them. The principle of the block combination of evolution is considered in many research works, particularly relating to the evolution of Living Matter. For example, in the works by: Sergey Afonkin [Afonkin, 2003], Vitaliy Kordyum [Kordyum, 1982], Yuri Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006], Alexander Ugolev [Ugolev, 1991] and others. The principle of the block combination of evolution is not a recognized fact in science. In the modern evolution models of Inert Matter and Intelligent Matter, it is in fact not considered at all. In the evolution model of Living Matter, it competes with the idea of symbiosis, which received a second chance thanks to the works of Nobel Prize winner Lynn Margulis. From our point of view, here it can be seen as a discrepancy of the same thought, because the idea of symbiogenesis is analogous to block complication, only with functional blocks – a more complex organization of Living Matter. We believe that the principle of block continuous combination is a universal factor of evolution which is inherent in the evolution of any state of matter. The difference lies only in the variations of this factor, which over the course of the block continuous combination of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments, carry out continuous complication of the structure and functions of blocks themselves. Assuming continuous complication of the structure and functions of blocks themselves, in the model Evolving Matter the author postulates that the single-layer organization is inherent in blocks of Inert Matter that are formed by the integration of the structural elements of various complexities. The two-layer organization is inherent in blocks of Living Matter that are formed by the confluence of two function blocks (e.g., molecules and genes) into a single complex function block that is able to perform the functions of self-replication, self-organization and selfregulation. Further evolution of Living Matter occurred thanks to different combinations (of the same symbiosis), but those already featuring twolayer complex function blocks in new organizations, with the following

38

Chapter Four

involvement of these organizations in the continuous and nonlinear block complication of biological organisms. Three-layer organization is inherent in blocks of Intelligent Matter that can actively transform (construction) external environmental conditions. Consequently, evolution of Intelligent Matter is further complication of the three-layer block organizations. All these questions we shall consider in detail in the following chapters. Now, it should be noted that the principle of the block combination of evolution is found visually and empirically: 1. In Inert Matter. For example, in the continuous complication of the structure: quarks ĺ elementary particles ĺ nuclei ĺ atoms ĺ molecules. 2. In Living Matter. For example, in the structure of proteins. Proteins consist of different domains that perform different functions. Some of them are “anchor” proteins in membranes, others react with substances/substratum, and the third type can join to the DNA. Combining different domains, proteins with different properties can be obtained [Afonkin, 2003]. The mosaic structure of genes corresponds to the block structure of proteins. Block structure has chromosomes, genomes, organisms, taxa, ecosystems, etc. 3. In Intelligent Matter. For example, the structure of the neural ensemble of the subconscious is formed from the “old” blocks (nervous systems and their structures) and new neural organizations (speech centers, the cerebral cortex, etc.). B) In the course of the continuous block complication of the structure, types of interactions and environments of any state of matter, the conditions are created under which some combinations are formed more easily than others. Implementation of these block combinations suppresses other combinations. Thus, the factor of continuous block self-complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments is carried out also by the principle of dominance. In biology, as a special case, the principle of dominance was considered by the outstanding Russian biologist, founder of Evolutionary Morphology and Animal Ecology, Alexey Severtsov. Developing his theory about aromorphosis, Severtsov stipulated that progressive (aromorphic) improvements differ from non-progressive ones by that they open (do not limit) the way to the following improvements [Severtsov, 1967; Veselov,

The Universals of Evolution

39

1975]. Later, the follower of Severtsov, Ivan Schmalhausen emphasized the importance of this criterion of aromorphosis, and affirmed that the complication of the organization of biosystems is inextricably linked with the complication and/or the extension of the conditions of its existence [Schmalhausen, 1926; Schmalhausen, 1946; Schmalhausen, 1982; Schmalhausen, 1983]. The principle of the dominance of evolution was investigated by many scientists. It occupies an important place in molecular biology, in biology (thanks to the studies by Gregor Mendel, Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, John Haldane and others), and also in neurobiology (through the studies of Nikoliy Vvedenskiy, Alexey Ukhtomskiy etc.). In our view, the principle of dominance in continuous block combination is universal and is the basis of the evolution of Inert, Living and Intelligent Matter. 2) The second universal factor of evolution is a nonlinear form of complication. In the study “The Matrix Planetary Systems: Visualization of Earth’s Evolution” the Russian futurist Eduard Vitol graphically depicts the development of the conception of evolution [Vitol, 2012a]. If a few centuries ago “iron” determinism by Pierre-Simon de Laplace was dominant (Fig. A), then eventually nonlinear views began to emerge. Initially, the researchers found out that the course of evolution does not always correspond to the vector, as certain deviations from the line can be detected (Fig. B). Later, the opinion that evolution is a branching process was given confirmation (Fig. C). Owing to this, many scientists formed the theoretical views that completely excluded linearity from evolution. Moreover, reticular models began to emerge, in which the picture of evolutionary transformation seemed even more complicated and confusing (Fig. D). At the beginning of the 20th century the understanding of reticular evolution in biology was stemming from one of the founders of the synthetic theory of evolution, Feodosiy Dobzhansky [Nazarov, 2007]. Another founder of the synthetic theory was Julian Sorell Huxley, who used this concept in his works and substantially supplemented and enriched its meaning [Huxley, 1971].

40

Chapter Four

From our point of view, nonlinearity as a factor of evolution is even more of a complex process. Substantially, nonlinearity is closer to a fractal diatropic network in the understanding of Russian scientists Sergey Meyen [Meyen, 1987; Meyen, 2006] and Yuri Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006]. Evolution is a fusion of trials and errors, chance and regularity, progress and regress, order and chaos, vertical and horizontal interactions, disasters, symbiosis, parallelism, co-evolution, adaptation, etc. It is a single fluctuating environment in which there are no restrictions for achieving the main aim – the right to existance. There is even self-sacrifice – the death of individual structures in order to preserve the system inherent to the nonlinearity of evolution. As with the previous factor of evolution (continuous self-complication), nonlinear complication is complemented by two important factors: A) Evolution as nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments is a hierarchical process. Hierarchy is a sequence in which each element is a part of the preceding element and simultaneously includes itself all subsequent elements [Grodnitsky, 2002]. In our understanding, the hierarchical evolution which is observed in our Universe is a consequence of two mutually exclusive (“complementary”) processes, the totality of which gives detailed information about them as an integral phenomenon. In any hierarchy of any state of matter, the Principle of Complementarity by Niels Bohr reveals the special feature of the evolutionary process. Namely, on the one hand, the environment, having been formed by the “mother” (previous) hierarchy, strongly inhibits a continuous and nonlinear block complication of the “daughter”

The Universals of Evolution

41

organizations. However, on the other hand, thanks to the same “mother” hierarchy, the “daughter” organizations all have chances to be consolidated in the conservative “mother” environment, and to a varying degree (depending on the significance of changes) influence its organization (structure and functions). Thus, the hierarchical evolution of our Universe is a mutually exclusive, and at the same time, complementary relationship between the conservative position of the “mother” organization, maintaining its integrity and invariance, and the revolutionary premises of continuously complicating the “daughter” structures, seeking to defend its right for existence, thereby moving the “mother” system to a new level of complication of organization for it. B) Hierarchical nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments is a directional process. Direction, as a factor of evolution, is explained by the actions of the previous factors: for the reason that each hierarchy means the nesting of the “daughter” organization into the “mother”, the admissibility of possible block combinations (the degree of freedom of continuous self-complication), in spite of seemingly endless variety, is limited. The “mother” organization imposes restrictions on continuous and nonlinear block complication of the “daughter” organization, establishing a certain minimum of acceptable (favorable) options of combining. This minimum number of possible block combinations (including the complication of the factors and causes of complication itself) forms the direction of the evolutionary process. Direction, as a factor of evolution, is revealed in the concept of orthogenesis, which proves that the development of wildlife is determined by inner causes, leading the course of evolution down a certain route, strictly defining its direction. According to this concept, the direction of evolution is defined by the fact that the hierarchical nonlinear complication has a definite direction. Considered as in this field are the works by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, St. George Mivart, Karl Wilhelm von Naegeli, Nikolay Danilevsky, Lev Berg, Ivan Schmalhausen, Alexander Lubishchev and many others. The historiography of this problem is published in the research of Igor Popov “Orthogenesis versus Darwinism” [Popov, 2005]. 3) The third main factor of evolution as a complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments of any of the three states of matter which are known to modern science, is isolation. Isolation as a

42

Chapter Four

factor of evolution is recognized unreservedly and considered comprehensively in biology. In cosmology and noogenesis insulation is not considered, though with a closer analysis of the evolutionary theories in cosmology and noogenesis, its influence and importance can easily be discovered. From our point of view, in isolation as one of the universals of evolution, three main forms can be considered (as in biology): spatial, temporal and reproductive. Each of the three forms of isolation in varying degrees influences the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter.

II. Enumerating the Causes of Evolution: 1) Evolution of our Universe is determined by the active principle which is the basis for the initial elements of any state of matter. Matter is a motion. Without motion, or without the active principle, matter does not exist. Take the same nuclear, atomic and molecular organizations of Inert Matter – they are based on interactional energy. The RNA world, protocells, cells and multicellular organisms of Living Matter – all of these are formed thanks to the use of internal sources of energy. The work of neural ensembles of the subconsciousness and consciousness of Intelligent Matter (unconscious and conscious activities) is provided with the reticular formation and other internal sources of energy. Therefore, the active principle, laid in the basis of any state of matter, is the first cause of evolution as continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments. Active principle as the cause of evolution is considered in many works. For example, Henri Bergson [Bergson, 1999], Alexander Chizhevsky [Chizhevsky, 1976; Chizhevsky, 1995], Ronald Fox [Fox, 1992], Claire Folsom [Folsom, 1982], Alexander Hazen [Hazen, 2008], Sergey Haytun [Haytun, 2005; Haytun 2014], Howard and Eugene Odum [Odum & Odum, 1978], Yuri Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006], Erwin Schrödinger [Schrödinger, 1947] and others. As a result of the complication of the factors and causes of evolution, the action of Inert, Living and Intelligent Matter has a different nature (further on we will pay attention to this repeatedly). If we compare Earth, as the cosmic object, and any biological organism, we will see that common

The Universals of Evolution

43

between them is that both objects arose owing to the activity of continuously and nonlinearly complicating initial internal organizations, and the difference lies in the nature of the energies of internal activity. 2) If the first cause of evolution is connected to the internal source of energy initially laid in the basics of any state of matter, the second cause of evolution is the effect of external conditions, succinctly – natural selection. Natural selection is an external universal cause which is characteristic not only of biological evolution, but also of other states of matter. Natural selection as a cause of evolution is opposed to the active principle, and plays a leading role in setting the direction of continuous and nonlinear complication. Natural selection as a cause of evolution is a key concept of the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin, as well as the modern synthetic theory of evolution. Natural selection as a factor and a cause of evolution is also considered in noogenesis. Owing to the actions of opposing reasons for evolution: internal (active principle) and external (natural selection) continuous and nonlinear block complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter have their limitations, outlined by regulatory compromise. Continuous and nonlinear complication is a constant search for a regulatory compromise between the striving of any matter organization towards invariance and integrity, and the need to correspond to external environmental conditions. The more complicated the organization, the less steady it is: the more energy it spends on its maintenance, the more destructive influence it is exposed to by external environmental conditions. Regulatory compromise as a result of the interaction of internal and external causes of evolution is not constant. As with all the factors and causes of evolution, regulatory compromise is variable, inclined to complication. A positive feedback mechanism can be seen: complication of the system leads to a conflict, the removal of which is possible only through further complications. Thus, in evolution as a complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments, the author marked out three main factors (continuity, nonlinearity and isolation) and two causes (the inner active principle and natural selection). From our point of view, all of the enumerated factors and causes of evolution are universal for the evolution

44

Chapter Four

of any state of matter that allows us to consider the evolution of the Universe, life and human society within the framework of a unified, universal theory of evolution. In the next four chapters we consider the evolution models of Inert, Living and Intelligent Matter, as well as the universal model Evolving Matter, through the prism of the universals of evolution, established by us – the factors and causes of evolution that are universal for any state of matter. Beforehand we note only the following: 1. Continuous and nonlinear block complication of matter, depending on the combinations of blocks and their elements, as well as their compliance with the criteria of regulatory compromise, leads to “consistent”, and to “discontinuous” evolution. We believe that in evolution the dominant position is taken by “consistent” block complication, as it corresponds to the factors and causes of evolution considered by us above. Our view is supported by Professor Jack Sepkoski’s paleontological database, which shows that generally the number of Earth’s species varies slightly over time [Shubin, 2013]. However, quite often, the consistently complicating structures, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter are exposed by chance to the regular destruction of the outside world (the “mother” state of matter). As a result, some of them disappear, and the rest of them have to adapt to completely new criteria of regulatory compromise. In this case, we observe “discontinuous” evolution. Accordingly, the block complication in these critical conditions will have a different character. Considering the continuous and nonlinear nature of the complication of matter, the close connections between the various structures, the interactions and environments, we can see that catastrophes in evolution occur very often. According to Sepkoski’s aforementioned paleontological database, at the scale of Earth five time intervals can be considered, in which the number of species had declined catastrophically. The most famous episode occurred about 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs, marine and flying reptiles, ammonites, and hundreds of lesser-known creatures disappeared. Other episodes of mass extinction occurred 375 and 200 million years ago. 250 million years ago, 90% of all marine species were lost [Shubin, 2013].

The Universals of Evolution

45

Continuously and nonlinearly complicating systems of states of matter have a large margin of safety that allows them to cope with shock. Shock causes destruction in varying degrees, to one or several invariant hierarchies of a system. Freed niches of a system are filled at once, but by organizations which were built as a result of other block combinations, the most appropriate update criteria of regulatory compromise. In general, the system does not suffer, but other block elements are utilized and as a result, other block structures, types of interaction and environments emerge, different to how they were before the destruction. Generational continuity is thus broken, but the integrity of the system is preserved. We do not exclude the possibility that owing to such shocks, mammals or a Primitive Man, under the influence of the factors and causes of evolution, had their vacated niches filled after a catastrophe in nature, bringing them to a new stage in their development. 2. Making the evolution models of three states of matter and the universal model of evolution in the basis of established universals was facilitated by the discovery of clearly visible similarities between the models. Visually and empirically, similarity of the main parts (blocks) of the models was observed, which contributed to their deeper understanding. All that remained was to choose the evidence base, which, unfortunately, did not always correspond to the declared level or reliability criteria. Due to the scope and multidisciplinary nature of the coverage, not all the desired information was available to the author. Upon close examination, the varying degrees of development of the models are revealed. When making the universal model Evolving Matter, as well as the evolution models of Inert, Living and Intelligent Matter, the author found the following key analogies: a) In each state of matter the structures, types of interactions and environments (environmental fields) are evolving; b) Each evolution model consists of an nth number of the structures, types of interactions and environments invariant (invariable) in time. These great numbers of invariant organizations are complicated to correlate with each other and to form hierarchies of systems which differ by the complexity of their organization; c) Each hierarchy of the system manifests itself in the functions. In the basis of the functions are laid the objectively existing abilities of the

46

Chapter Four

structure of the system to process material, energy and information resources, as well as the ability to move in space. Abilities are realized in the structure and as a result of its relative stability, they are also relatively stable; d) The hierarchical evolution of matter is regulated by: 1) the universal laws of interaction that are uniform for all evolution models, 2) the private laws which operate only within a particular model (state of matter); f) The hierarchy of evolution can be seen not only in the course of the complication of the system of a specific state of matter, but also in the formation of global states of matter. Thus, having reached the limit of perfection in the organization of the structure, types of interactions and environments, as a result of the complicating factors and causes of evolution, the “mother” Inert state of Matter regularly transforms into the qualitatively new “daughter” state of Living Matter. In turn, after a certain period of time, Living Matter becomes the “mother” system for the new “daughter” organization – Intelligent Matter. The “daughter” state of matter is invariant in hierarchies with a state of features uncharacteristic for the “mother”, where the structure, types of interaction and environments that are evolving do so under the influence of the order of complicating factors and causes of evolution. g) Co-evolution of “mother” and “daughter” states of matter at the scale of the Universe leads to the consolidation of a “daughter” state of matter in certain parts of a “mother” state and the formation by it, of continuously developing spheres of influence. Let consider the evolution of Inert Matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter according to what we have established as the universals of evolution. The author believes that the novelty of his research is concluded in the creation of a new methodology which, according to the prominent Russian evolutionist Sergey Meyen “...is able to curb the information explosion, giving orientations in the ocean of knowledge, crystallizing messy structures of private observations in the coherence theory” [Meyen, 2006: p.116]. Namely, in the methodology the wisdom of science is concluded [Meyen, 2006]. Systematizing the known factual material in accordance with the new definition of evolution and the universals of the evolution, the author tried to represent the new understanding of the Order of the Universe, and provide an holistic vision of the main stages of the formation and the development of the Universe.

CHAPTER FIVE THE EVOLUTION MODEL OF INERT MATTER

Based on the factors and causes postulated here, as well as their variability, we consider the model of the continuous and nonlinear complication of Inert Matter. We take the Standard Model of evolution as a basis, in particular a cosmological chaotic inflationary model. The first version of the inflationary theory was presented in 1981 by the American physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth Harvey. However, a key contribution to its creation was made by the Soviet and ex-Soviet astrophysicists, Alexey Starobin, Andrei Linde, Vyacheslav Mukhanov, Valery Rubakov and others. According to the inflationary theory, in the Universe, at different spatial and temporal intervals, spontaneous breakings occur [Kaku, 2008]. At each point where the breaking occurs, the Universe starts expanding, and new areas arise. Most of the time, the expansion is negligible. As the process is chaotic, at one point a bubble appeared, the expansion of which lasted long enough to create the Universe, structurally resembling our Universe. Expansion is eternal, big explosions happen constantly, some Universes branch off from other Universes. Under this scenario, these Universes can “blossom out” with other Universes, thus creating a “Multiverse”. According to the theory of inflation, spontaneous breakages can occur anywhere, even in our Universe, meaning that, from our Universe another one could branch off. It also means that our Universe itself could also branch off from another Universe. According to the chaotic inflationary model, the Multiverse is eternal, even if separate Universes are not eternal. In some Universes the value of ij can be very large, and then they immediately cease to exist as a result of the Big Crunch after the Big Bang. In other Universes, this value can be very close to zero, with the result that they will expand eternally. After all, in the structure of the

48

Chapter Five

Multiverse those Universes begin to dominate, which are rapidly expanding. Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, as a result of first order phase transition, in the Multiverse, the inflation of the fundamental (defining) space of the Inert Matter occurred, creating one of the Universes. Some scientists refer to the initial space of Inert Matter as a space vacuum [Chernin, 2001], others – as quantum fluctuations [Kaku, 2008]. Some scientists believe that quantum fluctuations are the result of the deployment of a space vacuum [Chernin, 2001]. We take the point of view that considers a space vacuum to be the initial and definite space of Inert Matter. In our view, quantum fluctuations are the next stage of continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments of Inert Matter, associated with the creation and annihilation of virtual particles. Arthur Chernin gives the following definition of a space vacuum, saying that it is “such a state of cosmic energy which remains constant in time and everywhere, possessing identical density in the space and in any frame of reference” [Chernin, 2001: p.1153]. Due to these properties, a vacuum is fundamentally different from all other forms of cosmic energy, whose density is not uniform in a space and decreases with time in the course of cosmological expansion, and it may also be different in different frames of reference. A space vacuum defines the cosmological constant, introduced by Albert Einstein in the general theory of relativity. As was established by the prominent Soviet physicist Erast Gliner, the expansion of a substance owes its origin to the antigravity of a space vacuum, and the substance itself appeared as a result of quantum fluctuations of the same vacuum [Chernin, 2001]. The excited state of a space vacuum is called a “false vacuum”, which is able to create a huge force of cosmic repulsion. This force caused the rampant and rapid inflation of “a bubble of space” that was the embryo of one or more Universes, each of which is characterized, for example, by its fundamental constants. In this “bubble of space” a huge amount of energy is concentrated. Inflation of our Universe was carried out exponentially (every 10-34 seconds, the diameter of the Universe was doubled). The speed of inflation was much faster than the speed of light, but it is not contrary to the law of relativity, as inflation is not related to the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships in a substance. This type of

The Evolution Model of Inert Matter

49

expansion is called inflation. Such rapid inflation means that all parts of the Universe fly into pieces as if from an explosion. In the period of quantum cosmology, i.e. from 10-43 seconds to 10-34 seconds, the formation of the spatio-temporal characteristics of our Universe apparently occurred. However, the inflationary phase cannot be long. A negative (false) vacuum is unstable and tends to decay. When the process of decay is completed, the repulsion vanishes, thus inflation also disappears. The Universe moves to the conventional force of gravitational attraction. It occurs about 10-34 seconds after the start of inflation. Owing to the initial momentum which was gained in the process of inflation, the expansion of the Universe continues with acceleration. It is supposed that in the inflationary phase, our Universe was empty and cold. However, at the end of the phase, enormous energy reserves which were concentrated in the initial physical vacuum, freed themselves in the form of radiation which instantly heated the Universe to the temperature of about 1027 K and 1014 GeV energy. This was the so-called Big Bang. Specialist in the field of theoretical physics Michio Kaku, based on data obtained from the satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), marks out the following phases of the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments of our Universe [Kaku, 2008: pp. 126-129]: 1. Till 10-43 seconds before the Big Bang – Planck Epoch. Almost nothing is known about the Planck epoch. At the Planck stage, regarding energy (1019 billion EV), it is supposed that gravitational interaction was as strong as numerous other forces. As a consequence, four interactions of the Universe were apparently combined into one single “super” force. Perhaps our Universe had existed in a perfect state of “nothingness” or in empty space with a multitude of dimensions. That mysterious symmetry which mixed all four interactions, leaving equations unchanged is most likely “supersymmetry”. Due to unknown reasons, this symmetry, having combined all four interactions, was broken and a tiny bubble was formed – the embryo of our Universe that possibly arose as the result of considerable, but random fluctuations. The size of the bubble did not exceed the Planck length, which is 10-33 cm.

50

Chapter Five

2. 10-43 seconds - Grand Unification (GUT) Epoch. A break of symmetry occurred at this phase, which became the cause of the formation of a rapidly expanding bubble. As the bubble was expanding, the complication of fundamental interactions was happening. First, gravity was generated, causing a shock wave in the whole Universe. The initial symmetry of the super force was broken and turned into the symmetry of lower order, which may have contained the symmetry GUT SU (5). The remaining strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions were still combined by GUT symmetry. At this stage, the Universe had expanded an incredible amount of times (probably 1050), and the expansion of it was caused by unknown causes until now. Space was expanding at a speed astronomically faster than the speed of light. The temperature was 1032 degrees. 3. 10-34 seconds – the End of Inflation. The temperature fell to 1027 degrees. A strong interaction was made. The symmetry group GUT broke down to SU (3)xSU (2)xU (l). The inflationary period ended, giving the opportunity for the Universe to proceed along the path of the Standard Model of expansion by Fridman. The Universe consisted of a hot plasma “soup”, free quarks, gluons and leptons. Free quarks turned into present protons and neutrons. Our Universe was still quite small in size, like the current Solar System. Matter and antimatter were annihilating, but there was a tiny preponderance of matter over antimatter (1 billionth of a part), and as a result, all matter arose around us. 4. 3 minutes – Formation of Nuclei. The temperatures fell low enough to lead to the next stage of continuous and nonlinear complication of matter – the formation of nuclei which ceased to be exploded under the impact of strong heat. Hydrogen was synthesized in helium (having created a current ratio of 75% hydrogen to 25% helium). Trace amounts of lithium were formed, but the synthesis of heavier elements was stopped because nuclei with five particles were too unstable. The Universe was opaque, light was scattered by free electrons. This moment marks the end of the primordial fireball. 5. 380,000 years – Formation of Atoms. The temperature fell to 3000 K. Atoms were formed by electrons surrounding nuclei. Now photons could move freely without being absorbed. This is the radiation (background radiation) which was measured by satellites COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) and WMAP.

The Evolution Model of Inert Matter

51

The Universe that used to be opaque and filled with plasma, became transparent. The sky became black instead of white. 6. 1 billion years ௅ Formation of Stars. The temperature fell to 18 K. The formation of quasars, galaxies and galaxy clusters began, most of them representing the byproducts of numerous tiny waves in the initial cloud of flame. In the stars the light elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen began to be “baked”. Exploding stars spewed the elements with a higher atomic weight of iron into the cosmos. It is the most distant epoch that we can investigate with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope. 7. 6.5 billion years – de Sitter Expansion. Fridman expansion ended, and the Universe gradually accelerated its expansion. It entered the acceleration phase called de Sitter expansion, caused by antigravity force, the nature of which was not investigated until today. In our view, de Sitter expansion can be associated with the qualitative complication of the structure, types of interactions and environments of states of matter and influence on the cosmic processes of Living Matter and Intelligent Matter, as well as certain other states that are not known to modern science. 8. 13.7 billion years ௅ Today. Present. The temperature fell to 2.7 K. We see the present Universe, consisting of galaxies, stars and planets. The expansion of the Universe continues to accelerate rapidly. Thus, for roughly the first three billion years of a space vacuum, as a result of the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments, invariant hierarchies of Inert Matter were formed: space quarks, elementary particles, nuclei, atoms, etc. [Naydysh 2004: pp. 435-441], as well as the main types of interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak. We believe that the hierarchical evolution of the Universe was not uniform. From our point of view, the chronology of the development of our Universe given by Michio Kaku is summarized and conceals the true, more complex processes that are evident in the evolution of Living and Intelligent Matter. From this perspective, we believe that experts in the field of Universal History, who investigate the evolution of the Universe, including on the basis of analogies with evolution of life and intelligence,

52

Chapter Five

give a more complete picture of the complication of the structure of matter, types of interactions and environments at the scale of the Universe. If we analyze, for example, the research by Leonid Grinin [Grinin 2013], then we can see that in comparison with the work of Michio Kaku, it is more courageous, and qualifies conclusions which became available not as a result of complex cosmological observations and calculations, but as a result of discovered analogies with the evolution models of Living Matter and Intelligent Matter [Global Future 2045, 2014].

We are convinced that the first star systems (as well as some previous stages) began forming much earlier than the period noted by Michio Kaku, approximately 3-4 billion years after the inflationary phase, and not even in the whole Universe, in some of its parts (our assumption is supported again by Leonid Grinin [Grinin 2013]). For our Universe (and possibly for other Universes) a characteristic is not only a violation of the correlation between matter and antimatter, which led to the formation of the Material

The Evolution Model of Inert Matter

53

World, but the uneven distribution of matter in the Universe. Continuity, nonlinearity and isolation as complicating factors, along with the internal active principle and natural selection as the cause of complication, along with the complication of the factors and causes of evolution, led to the following hierarchy of Inert Matter (the first block diagram). In our view, the complication of the structure of Inert Matter was carried out (and is carried out) not uniformly, by “hotbeds” – in some parts of the Universe, by virtue of the initial uneven distribution of substances (and accordingly, types of interaction and environments), invariant hierarchies of the structure of Inert Matter are complicated more rapidly, in other parts – more slowly. If the initial space of Inert Matter (a space vacuum) was for the whole system a uniform, common environment, and it had already started from quantum fluctuations and further, the environment became complicated nonlinearly in the expanding Universe. Quantum Field Theory is a theoretical basis of the description of the microparticles, their interactions and transformations. Namely, all highenergy physics, elementary particle physics and condensed matter physics are based on Quantum Field Theory. Quantum Field Theory in the form of the Standard Model (with the addition of Neutrino Masses) is now the only experimentally confirmed theory which can describe and predict the behavior of elementary particles at high energies (i.e., at energies substantially exceeding their rest energy). As far as continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and types of interactions of Inert Matter went, environments became complicated. In the second block diagram, we have shown the main stages (epochs) of the continuous complication of environments of Inert Matter. As you can see, evolution of Inert Matter is primarily a complication of physical environments and their transition to more complicated and diverse processes and phenomena of a chemical nature. The evolution strategy of Inert Matter can be traced in the continuous and nonlinear complication of the initial physical environment, from a space vacuum to the state of chemical environments. To understand the meaning of this strategy, we have to consider more deeply the difference between physical and chemical interactions (environments).

54

Chapter Five

Physical interactions are represented as a process complicated, with time and in space, by the influence of certain structures of Inert Matter on other ones, through the exchange of matter and motion. Physical interactions stipulate the continuous and nonlinear block compound of the structures in the systems. All the properties of structures of Inert Matter are derivatives of the physical interactions. According to the modern concepts, physical interactions of any type should have a force carrier. For example, a carrier of gravitational interaction is a graviton, which is a hypothetical massless elementary particle with no electric charge. From the point of view of Quantum Field Theory, electromagnetic interaction is carried by massless bosons, or photons, particles that can be represented as quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field. Gluons are responsible for strong color interaction between quarks. The carriers of the weak interactions are vector bosons: W+, W- and Z0.

The Evolution Model of Inert Matter

55

Chemical interactions are carried out in a gaseous or liquid medium. They occur in a collision of the most complex structures of Inert Matter – molecules that are in constant motion. In the classical theory of chemical structure, a molecule is regarded as the smallest stable particle of substance having all of its chemical properties. In a collision, so-called active molecules are combined, which possess more energy than others at the moment of collision. By virtue of the energy release, in combination with other molecules, activation occurs. The more molecules begin to interact per unit of time, the higher the speed of the reaction. Chemical interactions (chemical reactions) are a transformation of one or more initial substances (reactants) differing in their chemical composition or the structure of their substance (reaction products). As opposed to many physical interactions, in chemical reactions atomic nuclei are not changed. In particular, their total number does not change, nor the isotopic composition of chemical elements, but at the same time there is a redistribution of electrons and nuclei, and new chemical substances are formed. Chemical reactions occur by the mixing or physical contact of the reagents in different ways: -

Spontaneously; By heating; With the participation of the catalysts (Catalysis); Through the action of light (photochemical reactions); Under the influence of an electric current (electrode processes); Under the influence of ionizing radiation (radiation-chemical reactions); Under the influence of mechanical action (mechanical-chemical reactions); In low temperature plasma (plasma-chemical reactions), etc.

The interaction of molecules between themselves happens in a chain: association ĺ electronic isomerization ĺ dissociation In this chain the active particles are radicals, ions, and coordinationunsaturated compounds. The rate of a chemical reaction is defined by the concentration of the active particles and the differences between the forming and breaking binding energies.

56

Chapter Five

By the number of initial substances and products, chemical reactions can be divided into the following types: reaction compounds, decomposition reactions, substitution reactions and exchange reactions. Thus, between physical and chemical interactions we can view some quite significant differences, which reveal the evolution strategy of Inert Matter. The main thing is to understand what interacts in each case, and in what sort of environment. With physical interactions it is obligatory to interact with the physical carrying agents. Physical interactions cover the whole range of invariant hierarchies of Inert Matter, which differ from each other in the complexity of the structures and types of interactions. By physical interaction the chemical composition of substances is not changed (for example, water in any aggregate state has a composition of H2O). Exceptions are nuclear processes in which, due to changes of atomic nuclei, the chemical elements are changed, and that means the substances are changed, to which they belong. Physical interaction is obligatorily carried out in all environments: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. As opposed to physical interactions, in chemical interactions only molecules are involved. The chemical interactions are the interactions of inert organizations with a more complicated molecular structure. As a result of chemical reactions the occurrence of changes to the composition or molecular structure is obligatory. Sometimes, these changes concern only the distribution of the valence electrons of an atom. But in any case, the substance which contains these atoms or molecules is also changed. Chemical interactions only occur in a gaseous or liquid environment. Thus, the evolution model of Inert Matter reveals continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure, types of interactions and environments in the Universe. The transition from physical to chemical types of interaction and from a physical to a chemical environment is primarily connected to the transition from the interactions with the help of physical carrying agents to the direct interaction of molecules in a liquid or gaseous medium. Due to these qualitative transitions, the most developed structures of Inert Matter (molecules and macromolecules) have gained new abilities:

The Evolution Model of Inert Matter

57

1. to more efficiently processes material, energy and information resources; 2. to become more able to move in particular environments; 3. in the course of the interaction the composition and structure are changed.

Owing to the efforts of the UK universities Oxford and Cambridge, and also of the US universities Yale, Columbia, New York, Rutgers and the University of California at Santa Cruz, as well as thanks to financing by John Templeton Foundation, in 2009 a small group of scientists was puttogether to construct a new evolution model of the Universe. The result of the collaboration between physicists, mathematicians and philosophers with the aim to identify and explore the fundamental questions in cosmology, from within the framework of the philosophy of cosmology, is represented in the Figure above, as the evolution model of the Universe that reflects the current understanding of the basic stages of the formation and the development of our Universe [http: //www.philosophy-ofcosmology.ox.ac.uk/people.html].

CHAPTER SIX THE EVOLUTION MODEL OF LIVING MATTER

The concept of Living Matter is a modern interpretation of the concept of Living Substances which was introduced into scientific usage by Vladimir Vernadsky in the early 20th century. Despite the fact that Vernadsky initially considered Living Substances not as planetary, but as a cosmic phenomenon [Vernadsky, 1978; Vernadsky, 1987; Kaznacheev, 1989], even a hundred years later, in science and philosophy it is common to tread carefully when referring to Living Matter being classified as such. As of today, we can speak about Living Matter as a cosmic phenomenon only owing to evolution at the scale of Earth and near-Earth space. There is no conclusive evidence of the existence and development of Living Matter in open space or on other cosmic objects. However, in our opinion, only the insufficient development of the technosphere prevents mankind from discovering Living Matter at the scale of the Universe. We are convinced, in spite of the absence of an evidence base, that Living Matter is not only rather large in scale, but also exists in the different evolutionary states represented in the Universe, and has an influence on the course of some cosmic processes and phenomena. The origin of Living Matter (abiogenesis) is possible only on a separate cosmic object with certain physical and chemical characteristics. Swedish biologist Antonio Lima-de-Faria was one of the first who tried to show the natural transition from physicochemical to biological processes [Lima-deFaria, 1991]. Living Matter, having emerged in specific geological environments under the influence of the universal factors and causes of evolution, started itself to continuously and nonlinearly become complicated, complicating not only the structure of matter and types of interactions, but also the environment. Life becomes a part of planetary evolution, gradually turning into the dominant force. Carrying out a largescale circulation of substance, energy and information in the conditions of cosmic objects and perfecting ways of moving, over the course of time Living Matter overcomes a planetary scale of activity and begins to affect

60

Chapter Six

the evolution of star systems, and through them the galactic processes. In this sense, James Lovelock and other scientists (e.g., Michio Kaku [Kaku, 2008]) are right, when considering the evolution of separate cosmic objects as the evolution of a superorganism in which the dominance of geological processes is replaced by the dominance of ecological systems. In evolutionary biology there is not a well-established evolution model of Living Matter. There is a projection of the evolutionary model – the synthetic theory of evolution. The classic research works in this field are considered to be those by Bɺrdon, John Haldane, Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Sewall Green Wright, Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Ledyard Stebbins, Ernst Walter Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, Julian Sorell Huxley, Sergey Chetverikov, Yuri Filipchenko, Nikolai Vavilov, Ivan Schmalhausen, Nikolay Timofeev-Ressovsky and many others. We consider the model of complication of Living Matter through the prism of our proposed universals of evolution. When considering the complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and biological environment, we will rely on factual material, mainly on the monographs by Alexander Markov in “The Birth of Complexity. Evolutionary Biology Today: Unexpected Discoveries and New Questions” [Markov, 2010] and Yuri Tchaikovsky’s “The Science of Life Development. The Experience of the Theory of Evolution” [Tchaikovsky, 2006].

I. Continuous and Nonlinear Complication of the Structure of Living Matter In recent decades, the questions of evolution of the structures of Living Matter have been actively investigated in molecular biology. In this field the authoritative researches of Nobel laureates are the works by James Dewey Watson, Francis Crick, Marshall Warren Nirenberg, Har Gobind Khorana, Robert William Hall, Walter Gilbert, Frederick Sanger, Howard Martin Temin, David Baltimore, and also Matthew Meselson, Franklin Steele, Edward Steele and many other scientists. Reviews of the discoveries and advances in molecular genetics are given in the works by: Yuri Filipchenko [Filipchenko, 1977], Michael Golubovsky [Golubovsky, 2000], Dmitry Grodnitsky [Grodnitsky 2002], Peter Calow [Calow, 1986], Alexander Markov [Markov, 2010; Markov, 2011; Markov, 2011a; Markov & Naimark, 2014], Vadim Nazarov [Nazarov, 2007], Aleksey Severtsov [Severtsov, 2005], Edward Steele, Robyn Lindley and Robert Blanden [Steele, Lindley, Blanden, 2002], and many others.

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

61

The initial and definite space of Living Matter in modern biology is called a “protocell” or “protobiont”. The initial formation and development of protocells occurs in a nonequilibrium chemical environment, formed by the highly organized (molecular) structures of Inert Matter. As opposed to the previous single-layer structures of Inert Matter, protocells have a two-layer organization that allows not only the complicating of the structures of Living Matter, but also for being complicated through self-reproduction (replication), self-regulation and self-organization. In the previous chapter we noted that complication of the single-layer organizations of Inert Matter is carried out by the impact of regulatory compromise and variability of the factors and causes of evolution. A single-layer continuous and nonlinear block complication, by virtue of combining the elements of various complexity in more complex structures, can be traced down to molecules which are considered in the classical theory of chemical structure as the most complex, but at the same time, least stable particles of a substance. From the point of view of Quantum mechanics, a molecule is a system of electrons and atomic nuclei, interacting inter se. Analysis of the history of our Universe shows that molecular structure is the limit of continuous and nonlinear block complication of single-layer structures, and connected with them, of types of interactions and environments. Further complication of single-layer molecular organizations stopped due to an inability to achieve regulatory compromise. However, nature found another solution. In chemical environments the formation of two-layer blocks became possible, consisting of complex molecules with different functional activities. Regulatory compromise in these difficult two-layer organizations was achieved thanks to the fact that before dissociating (dying), these organizations managed to be selfreproduced. In the continuous and nonlinear complication of our Universe, the new era that came brought with it the possibility to use two-layer complex functional blocks, which have the properties of self-replication, self-regulation and self-organization, in block combining. In the grand scheme of things, the evolution of Living Matter is a game of nature that somewhat resembles a children’s “Lego” construction set, but only with more complex (functional) blocks and rules for their use. Complication of complication (Evolution of Evolution) occurred not when the nature of evolution was changed, but only when the complexity of the factors and causes of evolution changed.

Chapter Six

62

The two-layer structure of protocells is differentiated from the previous single-layer inert organizations, at least by the following characteristics: -

carbonic-organic, protein-nucleic-water base; dissymmetry of inner material-energy environment; irreversibility; nonequilibrium and direction of physical-chemical processes; selective ability of organisms in relation to isotopes of chemical elements; self-reproduction: self-renewal of protein organisms, which are based on self-replication; two-layer (protein-nucleic) atomic organization.

According to modern ideas, in the continuous and nonlinear block complication of protocells there are four basic stages: 1. The era of the RNA world; 2. Transition to the organismic form of life; 3. The emergence of a genetic code; 4. Transition to the DNA-RNA-Protein life. All of the above stages of protocell complication occur non-uniformly (by hotbeds) at the scale of a cosmic object. The first and most simple two-layer organization on Earth that is open to replication proved to be an RNA polymer. In 1967, the American biochemist Carl Woese first speculated about the existence of the RNA world – a hypothetical stage of the emergence of life on Earth, when the functions of the holding of genetic information and the catalysis of chemical reactions were carried out by ensembles of molecules of ribonucleic acids (RNA). In consequence, this idea was developed by Leslie Orgel, and then it was brought to its logical conclusion by Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert in 1986. Gilbert was the first who proposed “the RNA world hypothesis” on the origin of life. In the initial period of formation of the structure of Living Matter, replication was carried out by the catalytic activity of the RNA (ribozymes) with a lot of errors. As a result, according to Edward Steele, Robyn Lindley and Robert Blanden, the ancient RNA world was “evolutionary chaos” in which only the most adapted replicators survived [Steele, Lindley & Blanden, 2002]. The physical and chemical conditions of Earth

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

63

contributed to the large-scale continuous and nonlinear complication of two-layer block structures, as well as the interactions and environments associated with them. As was considered by Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster [Eigen & Schuster, 1982], the variety of chemical environments, high temperatures, the various available energy sources as well as other features of the environment stimulated the emergence of the first hypercycles. In hypercycles the components of chemical reactions behave like “Darwin’s Species”, i.e. possess the ability to “be selected”, and accordingly to evolve towards increasing the complexity of the organization. “Hypercycles” according to Manfred Eigen, and their compatibility with continuous and nonlinear complication, are the first and simplest organizations formed as a result of the continuous and nonlinear complication of two-layer block structures. According to Alexander Markov, at first, the earliest life forms actively used the simple inorganic catalysts for their necessary chemical reactions, primarily for iron and sulfur compounds. It is known that in the ancient ocean there were many more different ions of heavy metals than are present now, including some that were quite exotic, such as tungsten, molybdenum or vanadium [Markov, 2010]. Gradually, these catalysts were replaced by more efficient organic catalysts such as proteins. For this reason, the first proteins included iron atoms as essential structural and functional components1. Initially, protocells existed as a solution. In order not to dissolve in waters of the ancient reservoirs, the Living Solution was most probably formed in the tiny cavities often found in minerals. It is especially convenient that some minerals (e.g. pyrite) acted as catalysts for many biochemical reactions. Furthermore, the surface of minerals could serve as a matrix, a base to which the RNA molecules could attach. The ordered structure of

1

Here and further, when considering the evolution of the structure of Living Matter, we used material from the work of Alexander Markov [Markov, 2010]. As we periodically add a Markov model, our own ideas and the ideas of other authors, we do not quote Markov’s text, for three reasons: 1) We do not make a claim to the authorship of his ideas – laying emphasis on the model of evolution of Living Matter, that we discovered mainly due to his books, as well as through the studies of other authors; 2) We used the text selectively, under the arguments of our vision of evolution as complication that is not at all consistent with the overarching ideas of Alexander Markov; 3) In order to relieve Alexander Markov of responsibility for what is perhaps not an entirely as-intended usage of his materials.

64

Chapter Six

the crystals helped also to regulate the structure of molecules of the RNA world, to give them the desired spatial configuration2. The next stage of the complication of protocells was the transition from a pre-organismic form (in the form of solutions) to an organismic one, connected with the appearance of a lipid membrane. At present, it has been proven that the complexes of several different RNA molecules and calcium ions are not only able to attach to membranes, but also to regulate their permeability [Markov, 2010]. Later, as a result of continuous and nonlinear complication, RNA organisms were formed which were capable of synthesizing amino acid polymers – at first, short peptides, and then long proteins (this problem was considered in detail by Alexander Markov [Markov, 2010]). In the opinion of the Ukrainian biologist Michael Supotnitsky [Supotnitsky, 2009], continuous and nonlinear block complication of RNA as a carrier of genetic information has its limits. RNA is unstable in an aggressive chemical environment. Therefore, from the moment of the emergence of self-replicating molecules, in parallel there was a process of the selection of more stable forms from the number of DNA molecules, which emerged as a result of continuous and nonlinear RNA combinations with other molecules. In this way stable polymer agglomerates were formed, the forerunners of future chromosomes. Possessing the expressed polarity and significant electric charge by means of polarized phosphate groups, were large DNA molecules in low salt solutions that had formed around them; the ordered two-layer membranes of amphipathic organic compounds which reduced the destructive impact of the external environment on new macromolecular structures. Having passed the stage of the formation of a protocell, the continuous and nonlinear block complication of the structures of Living Matter proceeded in the following way: protocells ĺ prokaryotes ĺ eukaryote ĺ cell populations ĺ neurons ĺ neuronal populations

2

At the end of the 20th century the Russian biologist Eduard Kostecki proposed the theory of the Emergence of Living Systems on the matrix of the mineral apatite, and co-crystallized minerals with it [Kostecki, 2008a; Kostecki, 2008b].

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

65

1. Let us consider the stage of the regular formation and development of prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea. Prokaryotes are unicellular organisms, which do not have a cell nucleus. They are formed from two-layer functional blocks of different complexities, allowing them not only to adapt to their environment, but also to build their own system – a biosphere. A prokaryotic genome is found directly in the internal cell medium (cytoplasm), and is usually in the form of a single circular DNA molecule (ring chromosome). In the life cycle of a prokaryote there is no phase for the formation of sex cells, and pairwise they interflow into a cell with two sets of chromosomes – a zygote. Archaea differ essentially from bacteria at the molecular level. Externally, according to their ways of life or their methods of receiving energy, it is quite difficult to distinguish between them. However, there are some types of metabolism that are typical only for archaea (e.g. methanogenesis) or only for bacteria (e.g. oxygenic photosynthesis). Membranes and cell walls are differently arranged in archaea. As opposed to in bacteria, introns and histones are more often found in them (introns are non-coding inserts in genes, and histones are special proteins, involved in the genomic DNA packaging). Archaea are found more often than bacteria in extreme habitats; for example, there are archaea which are comfortable in boiling water, and at 80°C will begin to freeze. Only among archaea are microbes found parasitizing on other microbes [Markov 2010: p.96]. Alexander Markov suggests that ancient prokaryotes were most likely chemoautotrophs. They “joined” to certain chemical reactions which proceeded without their participation (by themselves), but slowly. With the help of a suitable enzyme, they began to catalyze the reaction, accelerating it repeatedly, and releasing energy used for the synthesis of ATP. In consequence, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), as a further functional block, was involved in the continuous and nonlinear complication of biological organisms and contributed to the emergence of structures, interactions and environments with greater autonomy (that were less dependent on external sources of energy). In 1941, the GermanAmerican biochemist and Winner of the Nobel Prize Fritz Albert Lipmann proved that ATP is a primary carrier of energy in a cell. For the first billion years of the co-evolution of the geological complication of Earth and the prokaryotic biosphere, new forms of microbes and new ways of producing energy were formed. Among the first was oxygen-free (anoxygenic) photosynthesis, which led to the

66

Chapter Six

following: Firstly, organisms, having the ability of photosynthesis, got access to the inexhaustible source of energy, sunlight. Secondly, new structures emerged that began to use not only planetary sources of energy, but also space sources of energy which greatly increased the activity and diversity of organisms. Thirdly, fully symbiotic microbial communities emerged, consisting of archaea and bacteria. Archaea oxidized methane, and bacteria reduced sulfate; though both processes are not fully understood, they were conjugated with each other in an inseparable whole. The efficiency and stability of microbial communities increased not only through continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of biological organisms, but also through the development of means of communication between microbes. The systems of chemical “communication” were developing, releasing a variety of substances to the environment, microorganisms reported on their condition to their neighbors and influenced their behavior. The cycles were closing, and the biosphere, according to Markov, “...acquired resistance and the ability to selfregulate. It was the beginning of the epoch of the Great Commonwealth of Microbes” [Markov, 2010: p.109]. Most microorganisms could not be without each other, having formed more complex communities – bacterial mats. The most important turning point in the development of life on Earth was the emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis, thanks to which oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere and made possible the existence of higher organisms. This key event occurred approximately 2.5-2.7 billion years ago (1.5 billion years after the emergence of the simplest structures of Living Matter), thanks to the functional activity of Community Blue-green Algae (Cyanobacteria). Like all the other complications, the “invention” of oxygenic photosynthesis is connected with block combination of two-layer elements, being, at the current time, at the disposal of Living Matter. According to Alexander Markov, in comparison with anoxygenic photosynthesis, oxygenic photosynthesis is a much more complicated process [Markov, 2010]. Anoxygenic phototrophs use sunlight with the help of a single protein complex which is called a photosystem. For oxygenic photosynthesis, the joining of a second protein light-harvesting complex is needed, the second photosystem. Mostly, both photosystems are similar to each other (both contain chlorophyll, are located on the cell membrane and partly consist of a similar structure and function of proteins). Apparently, both of them are

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

67

derived from a single common molecular “ancestor”. It is assumed that the ancestors of cyanobacteria “joined” the second photosystem from other photosynthetic microbes by horizontal gene transfer. Joining together in a cell, two photosystems eventually adapted to each other, specialized and divided functions between them. Continuous and nonlinear complication of prokaryotes, which led to the emergence of cyanobacteria and the properties that they had, is difficult to overestimate. Cyanobacteria created not only the modern biosphere, but also continue to support the same functioning to date, producing oxygen and synthesizing organic matter from carbon dioxide. Additionally, along with some other prokaryotes, cyanobacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen (N2), turning it into something accessible for all Living Matter forms. Without cyanobacteria plants would not be, because a plant cell is a new and highly complex combination: the result of the symbiosis of a nonphotosynthetic (heterotrophic) single-celled organism with cyanobacteria. All plants carry out photosynthesis with the help of special organelles – plastids, which are nothing other than symbiotic cyanobacteria. As Alexander Markov writes: “...it is not clear yet, what is the main in this symbiosis” [Markov, 2010: p.125]. The involvement of cyanobacteria and a number of new two-layer functional blocks in continuous and nonlinear complication eventually led to the formation and development of more highly organized living organisms – eukaryotes. 2. At present, in scientific literature two or three dozen possible scenarios of the transformation of the prokaryotic community in eukaryotic cells are discussed (for example, the research works by Alexander Markov [Markov & Kulikov, 2009; Markov, 2010; Markov & Naimark, 2014], Yuri Tchaikovsky [Tchaikovsky, 2006] and others). They differ in details but have much in common on the whole. The most widely accepted is the point of view that considers continuous block complication (symbiosis) and several species of prokaryotes (bacteria), as a result of which the eukaryotic community was organized. For example, Alexander Markov and Andrey Kulikov believe that, regarding the basic structures of a eukaryote: mitochondria are descended from alphaproteobacteria (aerobic eubacteria); plastids from cyanobacteria; and cytoplasm from ancient archaea [Markov & Kulikov, 2009]. The emergence of eukaryotes on Earth was, apparently, no later than 2.6 2.7 billion years ago, during the largest geophysical restructuring in the Earth’s history [Markov, 2010]. The initial cause of this restructuring,

Chapter Six

68

according to one of the latest models, would become the formation of Earth’s inner core, which led to a broad range of effects: -

exceptionally strong convection currents in the mantle; the formation of “Mono-Gaia” (uniform continent); maximum tectonic activity; a change of the tectonics of thin basalt plates by tectonics of lithospheric plates; the drastic reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere; a sharp drop in temperature (oxygen in the atmosphere began to accumulate much later).

Such catastrophic events could have contributed to the development of eukaryotes in two ways. Firstly, they led to the partial destruction of the previously established prokaryotic communities, particularly cyanobacterial “mats”. During and after the crisis new microbial communities began to develop, the prokaryotic community and the mixed prokaryotic/eukaryotic one. These communities were more stable. Secondly, in the epoch of extremely rapid (catastrophic) fluctuations of external conditions were set entirely new standards of regulatory compromise that, by the principle of dominance, encouraged the formation of new structures, interaction types and environments of Living Matter. The major difference between eukaryotic organisms from prokaryotes is in the more perfect system of regulation of the genome [Markov & Kulikov, 2009]. In eukaryotic cells, a cell nucleus emerged which allowed separating the cytoplasm, the region of the active metabolism from the region of storage, replication of genetic information and, most importantly, regulation of transcription and post-transcriptional modifications of RNA. Owing to this new intracellular delimitation, there was a sharp increase in the adaptability of unicellular organisms, and also in their ability to adapt to changing conditions without the application of inherited changes into the genome. 3. Further continuous and nonlinear complication of eukaryotes is connected with the organization of multicellular organisms, cellular (eukaryotic) populations. In the model of biological evolution by Alexander Markov, this qualitative transition occurred approximately 1.91.4 billion years ago. In a multicellular organism of a cell with the same genome, depending on the conditions, a completely morphologically different function of the tissues can be formed.

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

69

The Soviet paleontologist Kirill Eskov, when analyzing the evolution of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, came to the conclusion that on the basis of prokaryotes, the construction of multicellular organisms is impossible in principle [Eskov, 2008: p.81]. Kirill Eskov believes that the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is more fundamental than, for example, the difference between plants and animals. Only after the emergence of eukaryotes did it become possible to form and develop multicellular organisms [Eskov, 2008]. One of the leading evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, George Ledyard Stebbins, stated that multicellular organisms evolved independently from their eukaryotic ancestors, at least 17 times [Evolution, 1981]. According to Alexander Markov, unicellular eukaryotes transformed to achieve multicellularity more than 20 times: some transitions were completed with the formation of the realms of fungi and plants, and only one of twenty transitions led to the emergence of animals. A comparative study of the nucleotide sequences of the DNA of modern organisms shows that the evolutionary ways of plants, fungi and animals diverged about 1.6 billion years ago [Markov, 2010]. It is commonly known that multicellular life on Earth originated in the ocean. On land, the undivided domination of microorganisms continued for about 150-200 million years after large multicellular organisms had propagated in the sea. The first inhabitants of the land were probably cyanobacteria and actinobacteria and also fungi which, inter alia, were involved in a symbiotic relationship with cyanobacteria. Genetic and biochemical systems, having evolved from land fungi for symbiosis with cyanobacteria, later proved useful to them for co-evolution with the first terrestrial plants. All the surface microbiota gradually created the conditions for the settlement of the land with plants which began to explore the deserted coasts, approximately 410-420 million years ago. From the very beginning, terrestrial plants lived in close symbiosis with soil fungi, without which, they likely could not have left their waters. Plants (from green algae to seed plants) played an important role in the formation and development of the Earth’s biosphere. Plants are multicellular organisms, not consisting of a nervous system. The share of living plants on earth had a vast biomass number. Zoomass, having been recalculated on a dry substance, was about 1000 times less than biomass [Alekseenko, 2000].

70

Chapter Six

From all organisms, only plants and photosynthetic bacteria can accumulate solar energy, creating with its help organic substances from inorganic substances. At the same time, plants extract from the atmosphere CO2 and release O2. Owing to the activity of plants, the atmosphere containing oxygen was created, and mainly thanks to their existence it is maintained in a condition suitable for breathing. Plants are the main, determining link in the complex chain of nourishment for all heterotrophic organisms, including humans. Terrestrial plants form steppes, meadows, forests and other plant communities, creating landscape diversity on Earth and an infinite variety of ecological niches for organisms of all kingdoms of life. Finally, with the direct participation of plants, soil emerged and was formed. However, in the continuous and nonlinear complication of multicellular organisms we are more interested in another kingdom – animals. The basic genetic program of cell behavior, which was already present in the first animals, was so good and so flexible that the further evolution of the animal realm, including progressive evolution, associated with the complication of an organism, did not really require radical changes to the program, only small changes in “tuning”. In particular, regulatory regions of DNA changed, upon which depends the fine-tuning work of gene regulators. Alexander Markov notes that, intuitively, Man got used to treating the animal realm as something vast and infinitely varied [Markov, 2010]. However, lately there are more and more facts available, showing that in fact animals are a very specific, compact, and genetically homogenous group of organisms. The reading of a sea anemone genome gives a clear confirmation. Apparently, the strategy underlying the structure and evolution of animals consists of a special technology for the construction of a complex organism from a great number of originally identical modules – cells. The essence of the technology is that due to the activity of several key gene regulators (including Hox-gene) between the dividing cells, a complex system of relationships is formed. Cells exchange signals, concentration gradients of regulatory substances give symmetry and the plan of the structure for the developing organism, and both of these factors direct the process of self-organization, the self-assembly of a complex multicellular organism from genetically identical (i.e. initially in the same way “coded”) cells.

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

71

A genome works not on the level of an organism, but on the level of a cell. In fact, it encodes only the biochemistry and behavior of a single cell. There is no “program of the development of an organism” in the fertilized egg. There is a program of the behavior of a cell, and no more. As for “the program of the development”, it is self-generated by way of the interaction of dividing cells over the course of the development. It was found that during the early stages of the ontogenesis of animals, as a rule, there was no involvement of genes at all, and a fully “turned off” genome [Markov, 2010]. During the process of ontogenesis, a genome itself is obviously not self-sufficient: in the different cells of an embryo some genes are turned on, the others are turned off, occurring in a strict sequence that is determined, in particular, by chemical signals, by which the cells and fetal tissues are exchanged between themselves. Who controls whom does not become entirely clear. Some theorists on this subject even say that a genome is not a program of the development of an embryo, it is most likely a set of tools that is used by an embryo (or not used) at its own discretion [Markov, 2010]. 4. The next stage of the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of biological organisms is connected with the formation of neurons. Unlike plants, animals satisfy their numerous needs, moving geographically, using and constantly improving their numerous sensory and locomotor systems. All these external manifestations became possible after, on the base of a genome, the neurons of different structures and functions were formed. The Russian biologist Alexander Zusmanovsky said that despite a wide variety of options for neurons in the brain, their genomes are structurally indistinguishable from all other eukaryotic organisms of the given species. Only the schemes of the expression and interaction of genes are changed [Zusmanovsky, 2003]. The prominent Russian evolutionist Ivan Schmalhausen provides a lot of data, showing how the character of the development of embryonic rudiments is determined by their surroundings, despite the persistence genotype [Schmalhausen, 1926; Schmalhausen, 1946; Schmalhausen, 1983a]. For example, the isolated neural plate, in the presence of mesenchyme develops in normal neural tube, and without mesenchyme, in a cylinder without a cavity. At the scale of Earth, the neuron emerged a little less than a billion years ago (the initial stages of neuroevolution are considered in [Bazaluk, 2012]). A neuron is a highly specialized eukaryotic cell, with a

72

Chapter Six

complicated structure and functions. We will not deeply review the structure and functions of neurons and neuronal populations here. In-depth reviews are present in large-scale studies by many groups of authors. For example, Floyd Bloom, Arlyne Lazerson and Laura Hofstadter “Brain, Mind and Behavior” [Bloom, Lazerson, Hofstadter, 1988], or John Nicholls, Robert Martin, Bruce Wallace and Paul Fuchs “From Neuron to Brain” [Nicholls, Wallace, Fuchs, 2008] and others. We consider only the important background information. A neuron consists of a cell body with a diameter of 3 to 130 microns, containing the core (with many nuclear pores) and organelles (including a strongly developed rough endoplasmic reticulum with active ribosomes and Golgi apparatus), as well as neuronal branches. There are two types of branches: dendrites and axon. A neuron has a developed and complex cytoskeleton, penetrating into its branches. Neurons differ in shape, the number of branches and functions. Depending on their function there are afferent and efferent neurons and also interneurons. Afferent neurons perceive irritations, convert them into nerve impulses and transmit the information to the brain. Efferent neurons produce and transmit commands to the working organs. Interneurons are the connection between afferent and efferent neurons, being involved in the processing of information and the generation of commands. Empirical generalizations, considering the formation of neurons on the basis of eukaryotic cells, are presented in the research of the Soviet physiologist and founder of the theory of functional systems, Pyotr Anokhin, as well as in the works of his followers [Anokhin, 1978]. Among the classic research works in this field we note especially the works of Nobel Prize Laureates: Camillo Golgi, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Charles Scott Sherrington, Edgar Douglas Adrian, John Carew Eccles, Alan Lloyd Hodgkin, Andrew Fielding Huxley, Ulf Svante von Euler, Julius Axelrod, Bernard Katz and many others. The most obvious achievement of modern neurobiology was the answer to the question: How do cells turn into neurons and glial cells in ontogenesis? An interpretation of this question can be found in the review by John Nicholls, Robert Martin, Bruce Wallace and Paul Fuchs “From Neuron to Brain” [Nicholls, Martin, Wallace, Fuchs, 2008]. In the nervous system there are 1010-1012 nerve cells, intricately connected to each other. At the same time the number of genes that can define this

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

73

structure is only 105 or so. Moreover, the central nervous system shows greater flexibility during critical periods of development, even in adults, in whom are formed new synapses, and old synapses change their properties, or simply disappear – all as a result of changes in the activity of neurons. 5. The final stage of the continuous and nonlinear block complication of the structure of biological organisms is connected with the formation and development of neuronal populations and the nervous systems. The assumption that emerged in the middle of the 20th century was that complex brain functions are implemented not by individual neurons and their systems, namely populations, but by reticulum. In 1949, the Canadian psychologist and neuropsychologist Donald Hebb defined neural ensemble as the hypothetical association of neurons, being formed in the process of learning and performing a certain function [Bekhtereva and others, 1985: p.47]. Experimental evidences of the existence of such systems of functionally associated neurons, as well as the general principles of their organization were represented later in the research of the American neurologist Vernon Benjamin Mountcastle. In the 1960s, the Canadian neurophysiologist and Nobel Laureate David Hunter Hubel, and the Swedish neurophysiologist and neurobiologist Torsten Nils Wiesel formulated the modular principle of the organization of neurons in the cerebral cortex, having shown the existence of “columns”, an association of neurons in groups with similar functional properties [Danilova, 2000]. Continuous and nonlinear complication of neuronal populations can be seen visually in the hitherto existing types of nervous systems. The nervous system is an holistic, morphological and functional totality of various interconnected neural structures which, together with the endocrine system, provide coherent regulation of the activities of different body systems and responses to a change of conditions in the internal and external environment. The nervous system acts as an integrative system, combining into one afferent motor activity and the work of other regulatory systems (endocrine and immune). The nervous system consists of neurons (nerve cells) and glia (neuroglial cells). Neurons are the main structural and functional elements in both the central and peripheral nervous systems, specializing in the generation and transmission of electric pulses (action potentials). The neuroglial cells carry out auxiliary functions in the nervous system, providing supporting, trophic, secretory, demarcation and immune functions.

74

Chapter Six

In existing systematic groups of animals, the main stages of the complication of the nervous system can be traced, at the scale of Earth: a) The diffuse nerve nets are represented in coelenterates, multicellular invertebrate animals. Nerve cells form diffuse nerve plexus in the ectoderm throughout the body of the animal, and if strong irritation is caused in one part of the plexus, a generalized response emerges; the whole body responds. b) The protostome nervous system (Orthogon) is a nervous system in which some nerve cells are gathered in nerve cords, along with the diffuse subcutaneous plexus. This type of nervous system is in flat worms and nematodes (the latter has a strongly reduced diffuse plexus), as well as many other groups of protostomes, for example, Gastrotricha and Cephalorhyncha. c) The bilaterian nervous system is represented in annelids, arthropods, mollusks and other invertebrates. Most of the cells of the central nervous system are gathered in the ganglia. Cells of many animals are specialized and serve separate organs. In some mollusks (e.g. cephalopods) and arthropods a complex association of specialized ganglia with the developed relations between them emerges as one brain or brain nerve mass (in spiders). Insects have a particularly complex structure of some parts of protocerebrium (“mushroom body”). d) The chordate nervous system (neural tube) is observed in chordates that have an internal axial skeleton in the form of a chord, which is replaced by a spine in the higher life forms. By the structure and function of the nervous system, phylum Chordata ranks at the top amongst all animals. In our opinion, regarding the above-listed basic stages of continuous and nonlinear block complication, the structures of Living Matter pass them on to any other cosmic object with the appropriate physical and chemical conditions.

II. Continuous and Nonlinear Complication of Types of Interaction (or Complication of Functions) in the System of Living Matter Considering the above mentioned complication of the structure of Living Matter, we have certainly partially discussed the complication of, and

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

75

types of interactions. Matter is unity of structure and functions (types of interaction), therefore, it is difficult to separate these interdependent processes. Vladimir Vernadsky wrote “Biogeochemical functions of life” about the types of interaction and the stages of their complication [Vernadsky, 1987], notable works were also written by Vladimir Levchenko, [Levchenko, 2012], Andrey Lapo [Lapo, 1979], Alexey Yablokov and Abdulmalik Yusufov [Yablokov & Yusufov 1981] and many others. According to the modern concepts, any structure of Living Matter, regardless of its degree of inner perfection, has functions that are not typical for Inert Matter. They are called life functions. In the different primary sources these functions are generally reduced to the following list: 1) The uniformity of chemical compounds; 2) Metabolism; 3) Self-reproduction (reproduction); 4) Heredity; 5) Variability; 6) Growth and Development; 7) Irritability; 8) Discreteness; 9) Rhythmicity; 10) The relative energy dependence; 11) Homeostasis. The above-listed life functions are partially correlated with the functions of the twelve main systems, the totality of which constitutes the most complex organisms on Earth – mammals. Each of the twelve systems passed a long way through development and co-evolution. In mammals they exist, complementing each other. They are: 1) The central nervous system, which carries out simple and complex highly differentiated reflective reactions (reflexes) in an organism. It regulates the activity of the individual organs and systems of a highly developed organism, fulfilling connections and interactions between them, providing the unity of an organism and the integrity of activity, and also regulates connections and the interrelation of an organism as a single unit with its environment.

76

Chapter Six

2) The respiratory system, which supplies oxygen and removes carbon dioxide from an organism. It is used for gaseous exchange with the environment. 3) The cardiovascular system, which provides the exchange of substances between all the tissues of an organism and its external environment. As well as with blood, it is also carried by hormones that control many vital processes. Blood regulates body temperature and helps protect an organism from injury and infection in any part. 4) The hematopoietic system is responsible for ensuring the constant composition of blood. The hematopoietic system includes (bone) marrow, the spleen and the lymph nodes. 5) The digestive system provides an organism with the necessary energy and building materials for the reconstruction and renovation of cells and tissues, constantly being collapsed in the process of life. 6) The excretory system and the skin. As a result of dissimilation in the cells and tissues of biological organisms, various products of the decomposition of organic substances are formed (carbon dioxide, urea, phosphate etc.). The accumulation of these substances in an organism causes poisoning (toxication), so they should always be removed from the tissues of an organism. Carbon dioxide is removed during breathing through the alveoli of the lungs. Other products of dissimilation, soluble in water, are removed from the tissue by blood flow and are eliminated from the body through special organs of excretion (a small part of them is excreted through the skin). At the same time excretory organs remove from the biological organism excess water. Excess water and numerous by-products are expelled from the body during urination. 7) The reproductive system or genital system is comprised of organs and systems that are involved in the production of sexual products, providing the process of fertilization and contributing to the reproduction of biological organisms. 8) The endocrine system carries out the following functions: a) it coordinates the work of all organs and systems of the body; b) it participates in the chemical reactions occurring in the body; c) it is responsible for the stability of all the vital processes of the body during changes in external conditions; d) together with the immune and nervous

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

77

systems, it regulates the body’s growth and development; e) it participates in the regulation of the functioning of the reproductive system and sexual differentiation; f) it is one of the energy generators of the body; g) it participates in the formation of emotional reactions and the behavior of the body. 9) The functions of the locomotor system are: a) the ability to move; b) the formation of a skeleton for muscles, blood vessels and nerves; and c) the creation of protective cavities for vital organs i.e. the skull, pelvis, spine. 10) The lymphatic system provides the removal of poison from an organism, especially bacterial and fungal toxins and parasitic protozoa. In practice this system depends on the immunity of a biological organism. 11) The immune system supports complex reactions from the body, aimed at protecting it from the introduction of foreign material: bacteria and their toxins, viruses, parasites, donor tissue, and alterations to its own cells (such as cancer), etc. 12) The peripheral nervous system’s main function is to provide connections between the central nervous system and its environment and target organs. These are the twelve systems and types of interactions that, along with others, provide holistic and continuous complication of biological organisms in changing environmental conditions.

III. Continuous and Nonlinear Complication of an Environment of Living Matter The development of Living Matter on Earth is connected with the continuous and nonlinear complication of the environment. Starting from the earliest atmosphere to the modern abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic characteristics of ecosystems, we can see the complication of physical, chemical and biological environmental characteristics. Reviews of the environmental evolution of Living Matter are in the works by George Voitkevich [Voitkevich, 1988; Voitkevich, 1996; Voitkevich & Vronsky, 1996], Erik Galimov [Galimov, 2001], Kirill Eskov [Eskov, 2008] and others.

78

Chapter Six

The complication of an environment of Living Matter is connected with clearly visible phenotypic-oriented biological evolution. In the early 20th century, a Danish biologist and specialist in plant genetics, Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen, drew attention to the fact that on the one hand each organism is a product of the environment in which it lives, and on the other hand, of the genes that it contains; he was one of the first scientists to do so [Calow, 1986]. On this basis, Johannsen began to distinguish between a phenotype, an organism that we see in the specific environment, and a genotype, the totality of the genes that make up its foundation. However, as we have already noted, in multicellular organisms a genotype mostly remains unchanged, but a phenotype, due to gene-regulators, is constantly changing depending on external environmental conditions. Considering the factors and causes of evolution, we have already noted that every environment, as the “mother” in the hierarchy, behaves as a conservative system, in various ways limiting the freedom of block combinations at every level (genome, tissular, organismic, population, etc.). Moreover, as there is a continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure, types of interactions and environment of Living Matter, correlation between the “mother” and “daughter” organizations becomes complicated. Constant changes of the criteria for regulatory compromise, and the variability of the factors and causes of evolution led to a more complex version of block two-layer combinations. The result of this complication was the emergence and fixation of neurons and neuronal populations in the prokaryotic/eukaryotic biosphere, as well as the hard, dynamic ecological environment connected to it. In the previous chapter we found that the strategy of evolution of Inert Matter is directed not just towards the complication of inert structures, but to the changing of the nature of interaction: the transition of physical interactions in chemical reactions. Analyzing the stages of the development of Living Matter, we can say that the strategy of the evolution of Living Matter is directed not just towards the continuous and nonlinear complication of genetic programs and the types of their inheritance, but to a change of the nature of interaction between organisms: the transition from interaction in chemical environments of different compositions and complexity to interaction in ecological systems. The ecological system (ecosystem), according to modern concepts, is a biological system consisting of a community of living organisms (biocenosis), their environment (biotope), as well as a system of connections carrying

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

79

out the exchange of energy and substances between them. Alternatively, as defined by British biologist Arthur Tansley, the ecosystem is a system of complex, continuous and nonlinear complicated physical-chemicalbiological processes and phenomena. The concept of the ecological system is identical to the concept of biogeocoenosis which is widely used in Russian literature. In this field the classic works are recognized to be the research works by: German zoologist and botanist Karl August Möbius, American biologist Stephen Alfred Forbes, British botanist Arthur Tansley, American botanist Frederic Clements, as well as the works of a pleiad of Russian scientists: Vladimir Vernadsky, Vasily Dokuchaev, Vladimir Sukachev and many others. When we speak about the transition of chemical environments into ecological ones, we mean at least three important processes: 1. Continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and types of interactions of Living Matter: the transition of cells in cell populations to multicellular organisms; 2. The emergence of neurons and neuronal populations and their complication in nervous systems of diverse complexity; 3. The transition from the irritability of single-celled organisms to the reflection of multicellular ones. In our view, the main difference between ecosystems from chemical environments is that the emergence and development of the nervous system changed the initial purpose of genetic programs. New functional capacities were opened for them. Namely, without “painful” internal rearrangements in genotype, at the level of gene regulators that quickly respond to weaker (not essential for the gene mechanisms) changes in external environmental conditions. The nervous systems of diverse complexity due to the “invention” of gene regulators, as well as other mechanisms of intercellular interactions, achieved the most effective adaptive responses to the changing criteria of regulatory compromise that dictated the conditions of ecosystems.

*** To conclude the chapter, we compare the evolution models of Inert and Living Matter that are based on the variability of the universal factors and causes of evolution. Despite the apparent incompatibility of the scale of

80

Chapter Six

complication of the Universe and the Earth’s biosphere, enough similarities can be found between the models. Let us consider them: 1. In both models, the structure of matter is complicated continuously and nonlinearly. If in Inert Matter a one-layer structure is complicated (from a space vacuum to molecules), at the same time in Living Matter a two-layer structure is also complicated (from simple molecular-genetic links to the complex nervous systems). At the scale of Earth, using the huge research base available, we see complicating symbiotic organizations, namely functional two-layer blocks, which as they appear, are involved in new combinations; continuous and nonlinear complication of the biosphere. 2. Along with continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure, in the system of Living Matter the types of interactions are intensively developed. If the interactions of Inert Matter are developed only in chemical and physical environments, the interactions in the system of Living Matter are developed exclusively in chemical environments and ecosystems. In the system of Inert Matter there are four fundamental interactions, which along with the other types of interaction provide unity and continuous development of the structure of the Universe. In the system of Living Matter there are twelve major types of interaction that are “the functions of life”. 3. As well as the interactions of Inert Matter, the interactions of Living Matter are carried out through intermediaries. If in Inert Matter the intermediaries are physical carriers (photons, gluons, gravitons and vector bosons), then the intermediaries in the interactions of Living Matter are mainly signaling molecules. Physical interactions do not influence the chemical compounds of substances, however signaling molecules change the compound and structure of a target molecule, thereby to some extent changing its function. Signaling molecules consist of four groups of substances: endogenous biologically active substances (mediators of the immune response, growth factors, etc.), neuromediators, antibodies (immunoglobulins) and hormones. 4. The external environment has a dominant influence on the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and types of interaction of Living Matter. If for the organizations of Inert Matter, the external environment is usually a physical or physicochemical environment, then

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

81

for the organization of Living Matter under terrestrial conditions, it is the abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic factors of a chemical environment and the related ecological systems. 5. A system of Living Matter, as well as a system of Inert Matter, consists of a definite set of invariant hierarchies which differ from each other by the complexity of structures and types of interactions. The development of the biosphere is a continuous complication of the hierarchies of the system: protocells ĺ prokaryotes ĺ eukaryotes ĺ cell populations ĺ neurons ĺ neuronal populations 6. As in Inert Matter, each hierarchy of Living Matter manifests itself in the functions. Only if the basic functions of the system of Inert Matter are the perfect forms of motion of continuously and nonlinearly complicating structures, as well as different variants of the interaction of physical carriers of different complexities, are the functions of Living Matter different. Taking into account two-layer block elements of the structure and the more complex (diverse) influences of external environmental conditions, the development of the functions of Living Matter is connected with the complication of genetic programs and types of inheritance. Generally speaking, co-evolution of protocells, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, neurons and neural systems is the co-evolution of genetic programs of different complexities, and the biosphere is nothing but a single, integrated database of genetic programs of differing complexity. In our opinion, the idea of the English biologist Richard Dawkins that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not limited by the body and can extend to the habitat, including to other organisms [Dawkins, 1989; Dawkins, 1989a] is close to the truth. If the stability of organizations of Inert Matter is provided by the physical environment and physical (to a lesser extent – physicochemical) interactions, then the stability of the organizations of Living Matter is provided by more diverse and complex processes: Firstly, by genetic programs that “record” (encode) the structure of complicated biopolymers in genes. Genes are sections of DNA, determining the integral information about the structure of one molecule of protein or an RNA molecule. These and other functional molecules determine the development, growth and functioning of an organism.

Chapter Six

82

Secondly, by the types of inheritance. It is important not just to record the structure of an organism in genes, but also to pass on from one generation to another, the exact information about it. In comparison with Inert Matter, biological organisms, because of the complexity of the internal organization, are prone to rapid self-destruction. They have to adapt to the very different criteria of regulatory compromise. Therefore, the stability of the structures of Living Matter is provided by the relative stability of the genetic programs and reliability of the types of inheritance. On the basis of inheritance there are processes of doubling, integration and the distribution of genetic material, so the regularities of inheritance in different organisms depend on the characteristics of these processes. For example, in eukaryotes nuclear and cytoplasmic inheritance is distinguishable. Thirdly, on the topic of inheritance, in a genotype there can occur spontaneous and induced (under the influence of environment) changes (mutations) that affect stability. The process of the formation of mutations is often considered as a purely physicochemical phenomenon. For the most part, corrected by natural selection, mutations contribute to the evolution of Living Matter in complex environments. Fourthly, by the implementation mechanisms (translation) of a genetic program which was transmitted in ontogeny. The translation is divided into three stages: initiation (ribosome recognition of the start codon and the beginning of synthesis), elongation (protein synthesis proper) and termination (recognition termination codon (stop codon) and the separation of product). The mechanisms of translation in prokaryotes and eukaryotes differ greatly. Fifthly, by the direct influence of the environment on the complication of genetic programs (phenotype). The phenotype can be defined as the “output” of genetic information toward environmental factors. In the first approximation, we can speak of two characteristics of a phenotype: -

-

The number of directions of “output” characterizes the number of environmental factors to which phenotypes are sensitive (phenotype dimension); The “distance” of the potential “output” characterizes the degree of sensitivity of a phenotype to this environmental factor.

The Evolution Model of Living Matter

83

On aggregate, the dimension and “distance” of “output” determine the richness and development of a phenotype. The more multidimensional and more sensitive the phenotype is, and the farther the phenotype is from a genotype, the richer it is. If you compare viruses, bacteria, roundworms, mammals and humans, the wealth of phenotypes that can be observed is growing. 7. The evolution of Living Matter is precipitated by the same factors and causes as those of the evolution of Inert Matter. Owing to the variability of the factors and causes of evolution, the emergence and the further development of Living Matter became possible, in principle. The evolution of Living Matter is determined and regulated by two law groups: a) The universal laws of Inert Matter; b) The laws of biological evolution, which operate exclusively at the scale of the biosphere. 8. Having reached limiting perfection, the structure of the “mother” state of matter is naturally transformed into a qualitatively new state – the “daughter”. If the organizations of Inert Matter, having reached limiting perfection, turn into the state of Living Matter, then organizations of Living Matter, having reached the limit of inner perfection, turn into the state of Intelligent Matter. Intelligent Matter is the “daughter” system of Living Matter. Intelligent Matter is invariant in hierarchies with uncharacteristic properties for the “mother” state of matter regarding their structure, types of interaction and environments. 9. By the co-evolution of the biosphere and noosphere, and in turn, by the co-evolution of the Universe and Cosmic biospheres, a contribution is made to the consolidation of the “daughter” state of matter in certain parts of the “mother” state, and the formation of continuously new developing spheres of influence.

CHAPTER SEVEN THE EVOLUTION MODEL OF INTELLIGENT MATTER

In comparison with the evolution models of Living Matter and Inert Matter, the evolution model of Intelligent Matter is the least developed and raises the greatest number of questions. Intelligent Matter as a planetary or even cosmic phenomenon is not yet a proven fact in science like Living Matter. The problem of the plurality of worlds has a centuries-old history [Vizgin, 2007], it is suffice to recall the early ancient doctrine about the endless variety of worlds by Leucippus and Democritus, the revolutionary conception of the Renaissance by Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno, etc. The concept of “Intelligent Matter” was introduced into scientific usage by the author. In 2000, the author’s monograph “Intelligent Substance” was published [Bazaluk, 2000], in which the initial understanding of Man’s Place at the scale of Earth and the cosmos was represented. Since 2000, in various articles and monographs, the author argued the reasonability of the consideration of Intelligent Matter as the third state of matter in our Universe [Bazaluk, 2002; Bazaluk, 2003; Bazaluk, 2003a; Bazaluk, 2005; Bazaluk, 2006; Bazaluk, 2007; Bazaluk, 2012]. By analogy with the concepts of Inert Matter and Living Matter, on the concept of Intelligent Matter the author concluded that scientific information is connected to the concepts of both a “Human” and “Human Society”. To this very work also, the author was motivated by the works of academician Vladimir Vernadsky, which played a huge role in his scientific career. Namely, through the studying of the creative heritage of Vernadsky the author was inspired to develop the universal evolution model “Evolving Matter”. Despite the fact that the consideration of Intelligent Matter as a planetary and cosmic phenomenon is the author’s own creative initiative, in his argumentation he has relied upon the extensive research of his predecessors.

86

Chapter Seven

At first, after studying the research of Vladimir Vernadsky1, he came to a common understanding of the model Evolving Matter and the planetarycosmic role of Intelligent Matter; and only then, working on an evidential basis, did the author gradually discover for himself the invaluable contribution of his predecessors. Taking into consideration that the separation of the evolution of Intelligent Matter from biological evolution is as open a question in science as it is in philosophy2, before turning to the consideration of the model of the complication of Intelligent Matter (noogenesis), the author, on the base of historical and philosophical analyses, obtained a systematization of factual materials, proving the validity of the release of Intelligent Matter as the third state of matter known to modern science. In the basis of the content of the concept of Intelligent Matter, three main stages can be pointed out: The first stage (from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century) includes deep philosophical research into the basis of life and the separation of the evolution of life and mind. All of the directions of philosophy: the philosophy of life, existentialism, phenomenology, philosophical anthropology, and others were directed to represent the fundamental principles of life and mind. Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Nietzsche, Franz Brentano, Karl Jaspers, Edmund Husserl, Henri Bergson, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner, Jean-Paul Sartre, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Vladimir Vernadsky and many other philosophers developed a substantial scientific basis for the studying of Humans and Society as fundamentally different from the world of the life or state of matter. A philosophical exploration was based and accompanied by the revolutionary (for their time) research studies on neurophysiology, neurobiology and 1

A stunning impression was made upon the author by his first reading of a book by Vernadsky in March 2000, “Chemical Structure of Earth’s Biosphere and its Surroundings” [Vernadsky, 1987]. It has been the author’s reference book for a long time. 2 It should be noted that in modern science and philosophy, the reasonability of the release of noogenesis and its consideration as a separate process is certainly not an obvious fact. Many scholars continue to hold the view that noogenesis is the highest level of biological evolution, and therefore it should be considered within the framework of the synthetic theory of evolution.

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

87

psychology. During this period the world’s leading scientific schools in psychology and neurobiology were to be founded by Ivan Sechenov, Vladimir Bekhterev, Ivan Pavlov, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Camillo Golgi, Lev Vygotsky, Alexander Bain, Wilhelm Wundt, Edward Titchener, Brodesa Watson, Arthur Granit, Keffer Hartline Holden, Edgar Adrian, Charles Sherrington, Max Wertheimer, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and many others. The second stage of the basic content of the concept of Intelligent Matter covers the second half of the 20th century. At the second stage, thanks to extensive research by several generations of scientists, the understanding of the structure and functions of Intelligent Matter was greatly enriched. Intelligent Matter came to be regarded as a separate state of matter. An understanding of the structure, the features of the organization, the laws of interaction and the stages of formation and development was formed. A major scientific breakthrough was achieved in at least in four directions: 1. In the philosophy of language. Philosophy of Language (or “linguistic turn” in philosophy) unites at least four major directions of philosophy: phenomenology, hermeneutics, structuralism and post-structuralism. The researches in Philosophy of Language point out the fundamental role of language and speech in cognition, as well as the structures of consciousness and knowledge. Let us name the founders of the main directions of the Philosophy of language: -

-

Gottlob Frege, Frank Plumpton Ramsey, Bertrand Russell, Saul Kripke and Richard Montague are philosophers of language of the analytic tradition, lying in the field of logical analysis; Ludwig Wittgenstein is a founder of the aphorism “Meaning is use”; Peter Frederick Strawson is an initiator of the creation of descriptive metaphysics; Ernst Cassirer created the theory of language as part of a more general theory of symbolic forms; Ferdinand de Saussure is a founder of structural linguistics; Noam Chomsky and Jerry Fodor founded syntactic, computing and knowledge-based approaches; Mikhail Bakhtin, Maurice Blanchot, Paul de Man and George Steiner are literary theorists whose works had a philosophical focus;

Chapter Seven

88

-

-

-

Keith Donnellan, Jurgen Habermas, John Lengsho Austin, Herbert Paul Grice and John Searle are theorists who were oriented towards the problems of language use; Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida are authors who comprehended the problems of language within the frame of poststructuralism; Helene Cixous, Julia Kristeva and Judith Butler are feminist researchers of language; Valentin Voloshinov and Rossi-Landi are Marxist theorists of language; Donald Davidson and Michael Dummett are the developers of the theory of value.

2. In psychology. The second half of the 20th century is considered as the heyday of the psychological sciences. Psychology of descriptive science reached the level of fundamental, applied and practical research. Owing to new methods and approaches, in psychology a number of important features of the structure and functions of the human brain, different social groups, as well as interpersonal and group communication are discussed. Let us name the authors and directions that were actively developed in this period: -

-

-

Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler and Carl Jung developed psychoanalysis, the individual and collective unconscious; Richard Atkinson, Lev Vygotsky, Alexander Luria, Sergey Rubinstein, Jean Piaget, George Miller, Jerome Bruner, Ulric Neisser and others created cognitive psychology, studying the cognitive processes of the human mind: memory, attention, feelings, representation of information, logical thinking, imagination, decision-making ability; Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Victor Frankl, Charlotte Buhler and others developed Humanistic psychology, considering the “open possibility” of self-actualization inherent in only a human, and seeing the main object of a personality as a unique comprehensive whole, which represents itself not as something given in advance; Stanislav Grof, Kenneth Earl Wilber II, Timothy Leary and others developed transpersonal psychology, investigating the transpersonal experiences, altered states of consciousness and religious experiences (including from a state under the influence of psychedelic drugs), combining modern psychological concepts, theories and methods

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

-

-

89

with traditional spiritual Eastern and Western practices. Transpersonal psychology investigates the nature of consciousness and human development. Engineering psychology investigates the processes and means of informational interaction between a human and a machine, as well as the technical means of automation. The most important components of engineering psychology became the perception process and the processing of operational information, decisionmaking in a limited time, and the price/growth of erroneous actions. Classic research works in this field belong to: Georgiy Schedrovitsky, Anatoliy Piskoppel, Frederick Taylor, Peter Drucker and others. Carl Hovland, Muzafer Sherif, Richard J. Petty, John Kachioppo, Shelley Chaiken and many others developed the psychology of communication. Psychology of communication explores the complex and multi-faceted processes of establishing and developing contacts between people (interpersonal communication) and groups (intergroup communication), which are formed due to the need for joint actions. It includes at least three different processes: communication (the exchange of information), interaction (the exchange of actions) and social perception (the perception and understanding of a partner). Human activity is impossible without communication.

3. In cybernetics. Cybernetics is the science of the general regularity of control processes and information transfer in different systems, whether they be machines, living organisms or societies. It is an interdisciplinary science, originating in the middle of the 20th century, at the intersection of mathematics, logic, semiotics, physiology, biology and sociology. It is inherent in the analysis and identification of the common principles and approaches in the process of scientific knowledge. The most influential theories unified by cybernetics are the following: -

Theory of signal transmission; Control theory; Automata theory; Decision theory; Synergetics; The theory of algorithms; Pattern recognition; The theory of learning systems, etc.

Chapter Seven

90

Cybernetics as a science is based on the works of Norbert Wiener, Warren McCulloch, William Ashby, William Walter, John von Neumann, Heinz von Fester, Claude Shannon, Alexei Lyapunov, Victor Glushkov, Pyotr Anokhin, Alan Turing, Herman Haken, Sergey Kurdyumov and many others. 4. In neurobiology. Neurobiology studies the structure, functioning, development, genetics, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of the nervous system. The topics of neurobiology are: -

the activity of neurotransmitters in synapses; how genes contribute to the development of the nervous system in an embryo and throughout life; activities concerning the simple structures of the nervous system; the structure and function of complex neural circuits – perception, memory and speech.

Neurobiology is based on the research of Henry Dale, David Bohm, Karl H. Pribram, John Eccles, Alan Hodgkin, Andrew Huxley, Keffer Holden, Torsten Wiesel, David Hubel, Merlin Donald, Risto Naatanena, Miguel Nicolelis, James Olds, Chris Frith, Stuart Hameroff, Donald Hebb and many others. The third stage of the basic content of the concept of Intelligent Matter covers the period from the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century; a period of intensive developments within neurosciences, including neurophilosophy. Director of the U.S. Institute of Neuropsychology and Cognitive Processes (and also a disciple of the famous Russian scientist Alexander Luria), well-known neuropsychologist Elkhonon Goldberg, stated: “If the beginning of the 20th century was the epoch of physics, and the end was the epoch of biology, then the beginning of the 21st century became the epoch of the blossoming of the science on the brain and psyche” [Goldberg, 2004: ɪ.83]. The third stage involves the fundamental, applied and practical research of the initial, definite space of Intelligent Matter – consciousness; and trying to explain the neurophysiological mechanisms of higher mental functions, were the first constructions of the models of neuroevolution. At present neuroscience is differentiated into many directions that specialize in the study of diverse aspects of the structure and functions of the brain. Neuroscience is based on the classic research works of Alan

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

91

Hodgkin, John Eccles, Andrew Huxley, Catherine Morris, Harold Lecar, Eric Kandel, Paul Greengard, Richard Axel, Linda Buck, Elkhonon Goldberg, Pyotr Anokhin, Natalya Bekhtereva, Pavel Simonov, Alexei Ivanitskiy and many others. Modern neuroscience uses three main methods for studying the work of neuronal populations, the nervous system and neural ensembles: traditional, genetic testing and neurovisualization. The traditional method of studying neural organizations is based on testing and comparative analysis of brain damage. Basically it performs three tasks: 1. Establishing the brain’s regularities of functioning through the interaction of an organism with its external and internal environments. 2. Neuropsychological analysis of local brain damage. 3. Verification of the functional state of the brain and some of its structures. The method of genetic testing (a genetic test or a DNA test) is a modern method, using complex technical means to study a DNA molecule exactly. Genetic tests are used mainly to diagnose genetic diseases, however, for experimental purposes they are used much more widely. There are methods that are used to identify gene products, for example, proteins, enzymes, etc. Individual methods allow one to study the microstructure of chromosomes. Simultaneously to genetic testing methods, noninvasive methods of brain image acquisition were developed. Steven Hyman notes that there are three main types of neurovisualization [Hyman, 2003]. Firstly, morphometric analysis, aiming to obtain a detailed picture of the structure of the brain, is done using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondly, the method of functional neurovisualization is used to build up a picture of brain activity by recording signals which are correlated with neuronal impulses. The main tools are MRI and positron emission tomography (PET). The third method is based on the use of radioisotopes for localization of specific molecules in various brain regions and the determination of their concentration. Neurovisualization helps to find out what violations occur in the brain in various psychiatric disorders, to diagnose a disease and to monitor the effectiveness of any given treatment.

92

Chapter Seven

Highly specialized research into neuroscience has been combined in a single strategic direction by neurophilosophy. Neurophilosophy carries out not only large-scale analytics of the achievements of neuroscience, but also covers other directions of the research works: the philosophy of mind, analytic philosophy, cognitive psychology and many other sciences. According to the author, neurophilosophy aims to perform the following tasks: 1. Carry out the analysis and synthesis of interdisciplinary research into the structure of the human brain, as well as the stages of its development; 2. Study the particularities manifested by the structures of the brain functions; 3. Investigate the medium of implementation of the brain functions and the features of their development; 4. Carry out the simulation of neuroevolution on the basis of analysis of the continuously and nonlinearly complicating structure of the human brain, its functions and environments. In our opinion it is neurophilosophy that develops the foundation of neuroevolution, and also shapes the achievements of neurosciences on the planetary and cosmic processes. Modern neurophilosophy is based on the classical research of Patricia Churchland, Stanislas Dehen, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Jerry Fodor, Ned Block, David Chalmers, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell and Richard Dawkins. Also noteworthy are revolutionary studies for the time by Burrhus Skinner and Willard Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Gilbert Ryle, Noam Chomsky and Karl Popper, Wilfrid Sellars and Hilary Putnam, Michael Arbib and Thomas Nagel, Andy Clark and Roger Penrose, Colin McGinn and Richard Rorty, Stephen Gould and Paul Churchland and many others. Amongst the prominent Russian neurophilosophers (experts in the field of the philosophy of mind) are: David Dubrovskiy, Evald Ilyenkov, Feliks Mikhailov, Vladislav Lektorskiy, Igor Merkulov, Svetlana Balmaeva, Nina Yulina and others. Here, we note especially Alexander Gryaznov, who has produced great works into the philosophy of mind as both translator and author [Yulina, 2004; Gryaznov, 2006; Gryaznov, 2009].

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

93

Attempts were made at systematizing the concepts of consciousness in the works of Hans Eysenck, Daniel Dennett, Steve Priest, Viktor Allakhverdov, Alexander Gryaznov, Vasily Davydov, Sergey Korneenkov and others. All of the above, as well as many other research works, have allowed the author to come to an understanding of the content of Intelligent Matter. The research of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Vladimir Vernadsky, Alexander Chizhevsky, Nikolai Cholodny, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Vlail Kaznacheyev, Lev Gumilyov, Nikolai Moiseyev, Boris Porshnev, Aleksey Maneev, Vitaliy Kordyum, Nikolai Leskov, Sergey Haytun, Arkadiy Ursul, Akop Nazaretyan, Sergey Krichevsky, Eduard Vitol, Viktor Buriak, Georgiy Gladyshev, Alexandr Hazen, Vasiliy Morgun, Michio Kaku, Fritjof Capra, Carl Sagan, Roger Penrose, Ilya Prigogine and other scientists led up to the understanding of the evolution of mind at both the planetary and cosmic scales. The conclusion reached by the American psychologist and psychiatrist Stanislav Grof in one of his books, is stuck in the memory as a guiding star “...consciousness is the fundamental feature of the Universe” [Grof, 2004: p.219].

*** The previous historical and philosophical analyses of literature give the author every right to consider noogenesis as a powerful planetary force, and Intelligent Matter as the third state of matter, fixed at the scale of the Solar System. Our next step is: based on the understanding of evolution as complication and also the universal factors and causes of evolution (as established here already), to model the complication of Intelligent Matter at the scale of Earth. The model presented below provides only intermediate results, general conclusions and possible directions for further research. Rather, it is not even a model, but is an attempt to put disparate achievements from neuroevolution, sociocultural evolution and the evolution of technology into one coherent narrative construction. The author hopes that further research in this field will lead his descriptive model to the level of a functional model of noogenesis.

94

Chapter Seven

I. Continuous and Nonlinear Complication of the Structure of Intelligent Matter. Neuroevolution. In modern neurobiology there is still no well-established concept detailing the initial space of Intelligent Matter. One thing is clear though; that it is not a neuron. In the second half of the 20th century, Canadian psychologist and neuropsychologist Donald Hebb proved that in contrast to cellular organizations and their interactions with each other, no one neuron can transfer any information to other neurons; information is transmitted only through the excitation of groups of neurons, being the part of their respective ensembles. Hebb proposed that we should consider an ensemble of neurons as the main method for the encoding and transmitting of information [Danilova, 2000: p.31]. In modern scientific literature the initial and definite space of Intelligent Matter is defined by the different concepts of: “nervous systems”, “neural networks”, “mentality”, “groups of neurons”, “columns of neurons” and “neural”. However, all these definitions, in our opinion, confuse the simulation of neuroevolution. The reason for the confusion is, as we have already noted, that the last stages of the evolution of Living Matter are also connected with the appearance and complication of neurons at the level of the central nervous system. Therefore, neither nervous systems nor neural ensembles or networks, in principle, could be the initial space of Intelligent Matter, because structurally they are involved in biological evolution. However, on the other hand, an unquestionable fact is that the origin of humans, as a form of Intelligent Matter on Earth, is connected with not only biological evolution (namely with neuroevolution), but with the creation of a qualitatively new neuronal organization on the basis of the central nervous system of mammals. In previous works, the author gave a definition to the initial and definite space of Intelligent Matter; “mentality”. In our understanding, “mentality” included “sequentially developing neural ensembles of preconscious, subconsciousness and consciousness” [Bazaluk, 2012; Bazaluk, 2013]. In this work we limit ourselves to two concepts which, in our opinion, reflect the basic stages of the complication of the structure of Intelligent Matter – “the neural ensemble of subconsciousness” and “the neural ensemble of consciousness”. The author admits that two-layer structures of Living Matter, having reached the limit of perfection of the internal structure, types of interaction

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

95

and environments, stimulated another variation of the universal factors and causes of evolution, which led to the organization of three-layer block structures of Intelligent Matter. The main difference of these new structures from two-layered ones lay in the fact that the external environment began to form the conditioned programs in them – stereotypes, world view, standing in life, etc., which afterwards transformed into stimuli, motives, aims, objectives, plans in life and so on, and were implemented in daily activities. These programs (in the early stages, in the simplest format) formed by the external environment began to dominate over genetic programs, and biological organisms themselves with a three-layer organization of the brain (hominids) to provide equal competition with mammals, biological organisms with a two-layer central nervous system. Considering that for our formal model it is important that it is not a concept, but its semantic value which determines the initial level, the beginning of the process of neuroevolution; when defining the space of Intelligent Matter, we denote the concept of “neural ensembles of subconsciousness”. The concept of the “neural ensemble” is taken as the key definition of the neural structures of the human brain. In addition to the works of Donald Hebb, this has been used as such in the works of many authors, such as Natalia Bekhtereva and the members of her scientific school [Bekhtereva, 1985; Bekhtereva, 2008]. Moreover, the addition of “subconsciousness” (“neural ensembles of subconsciousness”) emphasizes that the complication of new three-layer block structures of Intelligent Matter is being discussed. When we speak about neuroevolution, we are speaking about microevolution which manifests itself in macroevolution: sociocultural evolution and the evolution of technology. Neuroevolution, in our understanding, is the formation and development of a two-layer nervous system, the transition of the mammalian two-layer nervous system into the three-layer neural ensembles of the subconsciousness of hominids, as well as its complication to the neural ensembles of the consciousness of Homo sapiens, and further, into yet more complex neural organizations. According to the author, unfounded enthusiasm generated by the transference of research results from two-layer nervous systems of Living Matter into three-layer neural ensembles of Intelligent Matter is not conducive to the disclosure of the strategy of the evolution of the third state of matter.

96

Chapter Seven

As with the initial and definite structure of neuroevolution, the neural ensemble of subconsciousness has a vertical (cortico-subcortical) and horizontal (corticocortical) organization. It presents itself by integrating the single neurons of different structures and functions into a uniform system, the populations of neurons of various levels of perfection, the previous neural system, and interneuronal and inner neuronal connections, as well as glial cells. Essentially, the neural ensemble of subconsciousness is formed by the basic blocks of the two-layer structure of the central nervous system, as well as by new neural organizations, which, by being open for new structures, create fundamentally new opportunities. What kind of opportunities are they? Modern neurobiology has not yet proven ready to speak in detail on the subject. However, a common understanding already exists. 1. As we have already noted, from the mammalian central nervous system, the structure of the neural ensemble of the subconsciousness differs (by consisting of three-layers). If two-layer molecular-genetic programs are prescribed to give to the structures of Living Matter “instructions” of behavior in their external environment (biological evolution has an exclusively adaptive character), then three-layer structures are aiming for an active use of the material, energy and information resources from their external environment for the satisfaction of internal needs and goals. The structures of Intelligent Matter are directed by non-hereditary adaptation programs, though also used, but to a much lesser extent, are many programs developed on the basis of imprinted external environmental conditions in the first and subsequent years of ontogenesis. These programs are not stable, they are dynamic, and are able to be corrected, changed and refined in the course of ontogenesis. It is for this reason that the infant brain abounds in neurons: the “easier” external environmental conditions are, the more neurons die from inactivity in the early years of ontogenesis. In fact, the abundance of neurons in the brains of infants indicates the readiness of the brain to absorb more complex external environmental conditions, to imprint a much larger variety of social attitudes and create on their basis the entire spectrum of current world view positions. 2. The neural ensemble of subconsciousness as a qualitatively new threelayer structure of matter had the opportunity to not only “reflect” upon itself and its external environmental conditions (to memorize (internalize)

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

97

the basic social attitudes), but also to respond to them. If the activity of Living Matter is manifested in the intensive copying (reproduction) of continuously complicating organizations of Living Matter, then the activity of Intelligent Matter is manifested in quite a different way. Namely, in the imprinting of external environmental conditions and the active implementation (self-realization) of internal creative potentials in ontogeny. As a three-layer structure, the neural ensemble of subconsciousness does not only imprint external environmental conditions, but in it initially is laid the active component which is aimed at the transformation of its environment. Owing to the directed realization of the internal creative potentials, the neural ensemble of subconsciousness got the opportunity to construct its environment according to the programs written in ontogeny. The internal active component, laid in the base of the three-layer structure of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, allowed it to transform natural external environmental conditions into artificial constructions. Thus, in evolution as the complication of the structure of states of matter, observed at the scale of the Solar system (in microevolution), we can distinguish three stages: The first stage is connected with the evolution of Inert Matter; it is the continuous and nonlinear complication of single-layer structures of matter and the types of interaction between them. The second stage is connected with the evolution of Living Matter. Further complication of the structure became possible with the creation of new abilities of matter: self-replication, self-regulation and self-organization. The second level appeared, it was due to genetic programs that emphasis in development was shifted from the complication of the structure of matter to the complication of programs prescribing “instructions” for the complication of the structure under specific external environmental conditions. The more complex the program is, the more complex the structure is, the better it is adapted to environmental conditions. It is for this reason that in Living Matter a tendency can be observed: the simpler the program of the development, the simpler the structure and the shorter the ontogeny of the organism. The more complex the program, the more complex the structure and the longer the duration of ontogeny. The third stage is connected with the evolution of Intelligent Matter, with the complication of an already three-layered organization, for which appeared the possibility to imprint, process, store and transmit skills,

98

Chapter Seven

abilities and knowledge to future generations, as well as to realize the inner creative potentials in artificial products of activity. That is, further complication of the structure of matter became possible, owing to the discovered abilities of direct construction (transformation) of external environmental conditions. In evolution, emphasis was shifted from the complication of the adaptive programs to the creative transformation of the natural external environmental conditions in artificial environments that increased during ontogeny of the structures of Intelligent Matter. For three-layer organizations, the criteria of regulatory compromise were determined on the one hand by the continuous and nonlinear block complication of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, which manifested in the perfection of the need to transform activities, and on the other hand, by the continuous and nonlinear complication of artificial products of activity (the sociocultural environment and the technosphere) in which inner creative potentials realized themselves. In Intelligent Matter the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure reached a new qualitative level, it continued in addition to the structure of artificial elements – technologies, created (constructed) by the structures themselves. For example, even now (after just a few million years of development), thanks to the evolution of technology in the field of genetic engineering and medicine, the life expectancy of a person, when compared with hominids, has increased at least threefold! For this reason, in Intelligent Matter another tendency can be observed: the more complex the technology (the artificial constructs of the environment), the longer the human ontogeny and the fuller the implementation of his internal creative potentials. 3. Thus, the structure of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness differs from the mammalian central nervous system in two important, fundamental ways: a) its development happens solely under the influence of the environment, through all things natural or artificial (sociocultural and technosphere). Beyond the sociocultural environment and technologies, the structures of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness are atrophied and degrade as a result, instead of being representative of Intelligent Matter, a defective biological organism is formed; b) the active principle, initially laid in the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, is oriented to a fundamentally new form of incarnation

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

99

– sociocultural and technological activity. All structures of Intelligent Matter have inner creative potentials that are realized in the course of ontogeny in the material, virtual material or virtual artificial products of their activity. The maximum opportunity of the central nervous system is the realization of simple and complex highly differentiated reflective reactions – reflexes. The neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness are carried by higher mental functions: perception, memory, thinking and speech. 4. In the structure of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, when compared with the central nervous system of mammals, a number of new neural organizations, and changes to the morphology and functions of older ones emerge. The work of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness is connected with the development of the structure and functions of thalamic nuclei, speech centers, the reticular formation, short-term and long-term memory, the limbic system, the prefrontal cortex, the neocortex, etc. The neural ensemble of subconsiousness carries out unconscious activities, according the understanding of Gottfried Leibniz, Jean-Martin Charcot, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Jacques Lacan and many others. In our understanding, the neural ensemble of subconsiousness came a long time after complication on Earth: from 5 million years ago [Drobyshevskiy, 2007] up to the period about 100 thousand years ago. Each stage of complication is a new invariant neural hierarchy, including the preceding neural structures, as well as a new neural formation, interneuronal and inner neuronal connections and glial cells. According to Konstantin Anokhin and Tatyana Chernigovskaya, during 5 million years of evolution in the neural ensemble of subconsciousness the following changes happened (in comparison with the brain of a chimpanzee) [Anokhin & Chernigovskaya, 2008]: 1. Changes in a genome. In 49 different parts of a human genome, the rate of changes was significantly higher than the average for the genome. Moreover, in some of them, the changes occurred 70 times faster than on average for the genome. As a result of detailed studies the gene that had undergone the most significant changes was isolated. This gene, HAR1, was encoding a very small part, some RNA, but it contained 118 (!) differences between human and chimpanzee. It turned out that this gene works in the cerebral cortex from the seventh to the nineteenth week of

Chapter Seven

100

embryonic development, when the upper layers of the cerebral cortex that determine the horizontal links are formed. 2. The principal differences in anatomy of the brain. The human brain is not only different in structure; it is three times larger than the brain of a chimpanzee. 3. The principal differences in neurophysiology – organizations of processes between neural ensembles (old and new) and their inner structure are different. The famous Indian neurologist Vilayanur Ramachandran singled out three parts of the brain that are present and intensively developing only in humans: Wernicke’s area in the left temporal lobe, the prefrontal cortex and the inferior parietal lobule in each parietal lobe [Ramachandran, 2012]. He noted: “The unusually rapid development of these areas in humans, suggests that there should happen something very important, and the clinical observations confirm it” [Ramachandran, 2012: p.32]. At present, it is assumed that the neural ensemble of subconsciousness guides mainly the following types of activities: 1. Unconscious motives, the true meaning of which is not realized because of their socially unacceptable nature, or their contradiction with other motives; 2. Behavioral automatisms and stereotypes, acting in a habitual manner, the realization of which is excessive because of their full usage; 3. Subliminal perception, which, due to a large amount of other information, is not realized; 4. Over conscious processes: intuition, creative impulse and inspiration. In our opinion, the basic abilities of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness consist of: -

the ability to organize, owing to muscular energy (physical labor), making it one of the simplest instruments of labor; the sharing of abilities with the following generation, through learning;

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

-

101

the ability to construct (transform) external environmental conditions for continuously complicating needs.

Owing to the research of Noam Chomsky [Chomsky, 1972], Konrad Lorenz [Lorenz, 1998] and other scientists, we know that the development of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness is connected with the perfection of genetic programs. (See: the even bolder hypotheses of Edward Steele, Robin Lindley and Robert Blanden [Steele, Lindley and Blanden, 2002]). While not having experimental evidence, we suppose that neuroevolution simplified the connection between the influences of environmental and molecular processes in the germ cells. We believe that the sociocultural environment exerts a certain influence on germ cells, and through them on the formation of the relevant parts of an ectoderm and thus the development of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousnessness. It is not forgotten here that in 1885 a barrier was declared by the German biologist August Weismann between somatic and germ cells which protects germ cells from any changes in the body. However, this does not function for certain, more advanced parts of a genome that are responsible for the complication of neural organizations. We are sure that evolution, having built into the structures of Intelligent Matter the third layer, and admitting the involvement of external environmental conditions in neuro-programming, provided fundamentally new molecular mechanisms, allowing for the impact of an external environment on the germ cells within. In 2000, the American psychologist Eric Turkheymer, on the basis of a large-scale empirical study, formulated three laws of behavioral genetics [Markov, 2011a]: x The first law: All behavioral signs of people are inherited, that is, to some extent they depend on genes. x The second law: The effect of genes is stronger than the effect of upbringing in a family. x The third law: A significant part of the variability of people in their complex behavioral signs is not explained by genes or the influence of a family. The point is that a major influence on the implementation of internal creative potentials is exerted by the sociocultural environment which, affecting the separate (new) genetic programs that are responsible for the formation and development of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness,

102

Chapter Seven

continually complicates human behavior. The author’s research shows that with each generation of Intelligent Matter, owing to the direct impact of the complicating sociocultural environment and the various kinds of technologies on genetic programs and the types of their inheritance, appears a more perfect brain. The strategy of neuroevolution can be summarized by a quotation from a book of the leading Russian experts in the philosophy of science by Irina Beskova, Irina Gerasimova and Igor Merkulov – “The Phenomenon of Consciousness”: “...In the course of neuroevolution, the natural selection was happening according to cognitive functions of the brain” [Beskova, Gerasimova, Merkulov, 2010: p.52]. About one hundred thousand years ago, continuous and nonlinear block complication of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness led to the formation of the most perfect neural ensemble of consciousness at the scale of Earth. The neural ensemble of consciousness includes the previous structures of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, as well as qualitatively new neuron blocks. The fact that the neural ensemble of consciousness is not a single organ, and involves a certain area of the brain is confirmed by many researches. For example, one of the leading Soviet neurosurgeons, Eduard Kandel, said in the 1970s: “...the experience of neurosurgery allows assertions to be made about the existence of the neuron complex of consciousness, the brain area, the borders of which are still difficult to determine with sufficient accuracy. It is oral divisions of the brain stem (mesencephalon and diencephalon), including mesencephalic tegmentum, the aqueduct of the Sylvius area, quadrigeminal bodies, hypothalamus and oral divisions of the medulla oblongata. Clinical experience allows for assertions that lesion and, in particular, ischemia, compression or dislocation of this area of the brain lead most often to inhibition or the complete shutdown of consciousness. It is known that in this area the so-called ascending activating system of reticular formation is located, which stimulates the activity of the cerebral cortex, necessary for the integration of sensory afferentation and the transformation of it into conscious sensations” [Kandel, 1978: p.341]. Unfortunately, about the complication of the structure of the neural ensemble of consciousness, we can speak only in generalities. Modern neurobiology is far from an understanding of many processes and phenomena in the human brain. Many of the conclusions are based on neurovisualization, which reveals only symptoms of the process. In the block complication of a three-layered organization of a brain, the following things should be pointed out:

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

103

1. The author believes that on the scale of Earth, the neural ensemble of consciousness began to manifest itself in the brain of the Cro-Magnon. The coexistence of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons is a good example of the interaction of brains of differing inner perfection. 2. Vilayanur Ramachandran, as well as some other scientists (e.g. Marco Iacoboni [Iacoboni, 2011]), believes that the formation of the neural ensemble of consciousness is connected in particular with the further development of the population of mirror neurons [Ramachandran, 2006; Ramachandran, 2012]. Ramachandran says that “Owing to the strong development of the system of mirror neurons, evolution actually made culture by a new genome” [Ramachandran, 2012: p.32]. “I suppose that in the brain, genetic changes actually occurred, but, ironically these changes freed us from genetics, strengthening our ability to learn from each other. This unique ability freed our brain from Darwin’s shackles and contributed to the rapid spread of unique inventions such as the production of beads made of shells, guns, the use of fire, the housing device or the invention of new words” [Ramachandran, 2012: p.127]. 3. The complication of the neural ensemble of consciousness is connected with significant changes in the structure and functions of the brain. The research of Vileyanaura Ramachandran, Marco Iacoboni, John Nicholls, Bruce Wallace, Robert Martin and others has shown that these changes mainly touch the following areas of the brain: a) the frontal lobes; b) the prefrontal cortex; c) the inferior parietal lobule, most of which breaks down into the supramarginal and angular gyrus only in the human brain. Being at the crossroads between sight (occipital lobes), touch (parietal lobes) and hearing (temporal lobes), the inferior parietal lobule is strategically located to receive information from all sensory modalities. It is assumed that the inferior parietal lobe is involved in such specifically human activities as naming, reading, writing and calculation [Ramachandran, 2012]; d) the visual areas of the brain (in the human brain there are 30 visual areas, while in the mammalian brain, there are no more than 10); e) Wernicke’s and Broca’s speech areas; f) the molecular mechanisms of interneuronal and inner neuronal connections (on the one hand, they provide the development of short and long-term memory, and on the other hand, they form new integrative connections between the various structures of the brain). 4. Comparing the opportunities of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals, who co-existed together for a long time, and doing so on the basis of the

Chapter Seven

104

available material that we have, we can determine the strategy of evolution of Intelligent Matter. In our opinion, the strategy of evolution of Intelligent Matter (noogenesis) consists of: -

-

-

Neuroevolution – the continuous and nonlinear complication of the initial and definite three-layer structure of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness. In the course of neuroevolution, the ability of Intelligent Matter to imprint, process, store and transmit to the following generations the achievements of the external sociocultural environment and technosphere were perfected; The evolution of ways and means of communication – the continuous and nonlinear complication of the ways and means of realizing internal creative potential in at least three different processes: communication (exchange of information), interaction (exchange of activities) and social perception (perception and understanding of a partner); Sociocultural evolution and evolution of technology – the continuous and nonlinear complication of the artificial products of human activity. Using different kinds of activities (communication, game, learning, labor), a person: 1) transforms the world in accordance with objectives (practical activity); 2) commits a cognitive activity aimed at understanding the objective laws of the existence of Earth, without which it is impossible to perform practical tasks; or 3) provides aesthetic activity, which is connected with the perception and creation of works of art.

5. In our opinion, the evolution of civilization is continuous competition between neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness of various complexities. Just as, in ancient society, there was competition between the neural ensembles of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals, in modern society, there is competition between the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, with various levels of perfection in the internal structures and the capabilities of creative potentials.

II. Continuous and Nonlinear Complication of the Interaction (or Manifest Function) Structures of Intelligent Matter The continuous and nonlinear complication of the neural ensemble of consciousness led to the formation of new cognitive functions: remote memory, speech, thinking and other higher mental functions [Danilova

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

105

&Krylova, 1989; Danilova, 2000]. The progressive development of the brain and mental abilities in hominids and humans are inextricably connected with their social way of life and their need to anticipate the actions of fellow tribesmen, manipulate them, learn from them, and optimally combine altruism with selfishness in their behavior. All these changes increased the transformative and constructive impact of Intelligent Matter on the environment and contributed to the formation of the noosphere. In our opinion, the continuous and nonlinear complication of the types of interaction (or manifest function) of the structures of Intelligent Matter is directly connected with the development of ways and means of communication: 1. Communication (exchange of information); 2. Interaction (exchange of actions); 3. Social perception (perception and understanding of a partner) Let us consider these processes in detail. 1. The Russian scientist Sergey Borisnev gives the following definition of the communication process: communication should be understood as the “social anchoring process of transmission and perception of information in terms of interpersonal and mass interaction through different channels, using different means of communication” [Borisnev, 2003: p.14]. According to the well-known German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, communication by itself is a trinity of information, message and understanding (with awareness of the distinction between information and message) [Luhmann, 2011]. Sergey Borisnev notes that social communication solves four major interrelated problems in the course of its implementation [Borisnev, 2003]: -

-

The integration of separate individuals into social groups and communities, and of the latter into a uniform, holistic system of society; The internal differentiation of society and the constituents of its groups, communities, social organizations and institutions; The separation and isolation of society and different groups and communities from each other in the process of their communication and interaction that leads to their greater awareness of its

Chapter Seven

106

-

specificity, and to a more effective implementation of the functions that are inherent to them; The creation of prerequisites and major components for the preparation, adoption and implementation of administrative decisions.

Analyzing the stratum of literature on this problem, Sergey Borisnev chose the following models of communication which have been considered by modern science [Borisnev, 2003]: a) The linear (classical) model of communication was proposed by one of the founders of modern political science, Harold Lasswell, in 1948. It includes the five main elements of the communication process: who? (the sender of a message) – a communicator; what? (is sent) – a message; how? (a way to send) – a channel; whom? (a message was sent to) – an audience; with what effect? (effectiveness of communication) – the result. b) The socio-psychological (interactionist) model of communication was proposed by the American social psychologist Theodore Newcomb in 1953. His theory of communicative acts is a social cognitive theory which explains the occurrence of affection and hostility. This theory constructs the tripartite scheme of a communicative act: A - B - X, where A is the perceiving subject, B is another person, with whom communication happens, and X is the object at which the activity is aimed by both A and B. If A perceives that his or her attitude and the attitude of B to the object X are similar (consonance), this initiates the occurrence of affection between them. When a perception of dissimilarity occurs, hostility is formed. It is assumed that in the latter situation changes of attitude to the object are possible, thus achieving the maintenance of consonance with others [Newcomb, 1953]. c) The Shannon-Weaver model of communication was proposed by the American engineer and mathematician Claude Shannon and mathematician Warren Weaver in 1949. Their model supplemented the linear model with the essential element disturbance (noise) that prevents communication. Disturbance can be technical (connected to disturbances in the transmitter and/or channel) or semantic (connected with the distortion of the transmitted meaning or the perception of the content). d) A circular (closed), balanced model of communication was proposed by Wilbur Schramm and Charles Osgood in 1954. Its main distinguishing

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

107

feature is the postulation of the circular nature of the mass communication process. Another feature of it is determined by the fact that Wilbur Schramm and Charles Osgood paid attention to the behavior of the main participants of communication: the transmitter and the receiver, whose main tasks are the encoding, decoding and interpretation of a message. 2. The continuous and nonlinear complication of the types of interaction of Intelligent Matter is directly connected with the development of interactionism. The founders of symbolic interactionism were American philosophers, representatives of the Chicago School of Sociology: George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer and others. Having taken as a basis the views of the German philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel, the representatives of interactionism developed his idea about society being formed on the exchanging of gestures and symbols: interactions are carried out through language as well as through the exchange of gestures and symbols. To understand human behavior it is necessary to cognize inner symbolic meaning – a code embodied primarily in the language that is understood by the participants of an interaction. Using communication symbols suggests that all participants of an interaction adequately understand conventional language and thus can successfully communicate with each other. Owing to the significance of symbols, people find it easier to imagine the consequences of their behavior from the point of view of others and to adapt to their expectations. To the classical understanding of interactionism, the author wishes to add the understanding of the activities of communicating with Soviet representatives of psychological schools, first of all, the classic works on the psychological activity theory by Sergey Rubinstein, Volf Merlin, Alexey Leontiev, Mikhail Basov, and the representatives of their scientific schools. In the early 20th century, the scientific schools by Alexey Leontiev and Sergey Rubinstein independently developed the theory of activity. Despite the fact that the author considers the basic thesis of the theory of activity erroneous (the author’s research shows that activity does not determine consciousness; consciousness determines activity), many aspects of the theory provided the basis for the modern understanding of the communication process and the different types of communication. The modern psychological activity theory of noogenesis points out five basic types of communication:

108

Chapter Seven

a) Material communication – the exchange of objects or products of activity. b) Cognitive communication – the exchange of information and knowledge. c) Conditional or emotional communication – the exchange of emotional states between communicating individuals. d) Motivation communication – the exchange of desires, motives, aims, interests or needs. This takes place both in business and in interpersonal communication. e) Activist communication – the exchange of skills and abilities, which occurs as a result of joint activities. Sergey Krichevsky, a well-known expert in the field of aerospace activity, believes that all activity of modern civilization can be “structured, divided into a plurality of spheres (parts, areas, and so on), that corresponds to a known division of labor and specialization of activities, difficult relations – connections and interactions that exist between them” [Krichevsky, 2008: p.84]. According to Krichevsky, the main criteria of the structuring of activities are the target and spatial criteria. The aims and spaces of activities are defined by the subject. In his doctoral dissertation “Aerospace Activity: Philosophical and Methodological Analysis”, Krichevsky represented the features of the material and technical spheres of activity, covering the historical, philosophical and methodological, social and environmental aspects of the sectors and areas of technical activities [Krichevsky, 2008]. 3. In 1947 the concept of “social perception” was developed and introduced into scientific circulation by the famous American psychologist and educator Jerome Seymour Bruner. Social perception is defined as the perception of the external signs of a person, comparing them with one’s own personal characteristics, and interpreting and predicting the actions and deeds of the person on this basis. Thus, in social perception, there is an assessment of another person and the formation, based on this assessment by the object, of an impression of a certain attitude in terms of both emotional and behavioral aspects. The process of cognition by one person of another, evaluating him, and the formation of a certain attitude are integral parts of human communication and can be conditionally called the perceptive aspect of communication. Social perception has the following main functions: self-knowledge, knowledge of one’s partner, the organization of joint activities on the basis

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

109

of mutual understanding and the establishment of certain emotional interrelations. Mutual understanding is a socio-psychological phenomenon, at the centre of which is empathy.

III. Continuous and Nonlinear Complication of the Environments of Intelligent Matter At the end of the 20th century, the famous American anthropologist Owen Lovejoy put forward the hypothesis that the basis of the evolution of humans is due neither to an increase of brain size nor to the usage of stone tools (these signs appeared in the evolution of hominids much later), but to other unique features of the “human” evolutionary line that are connected with sexual behavior, family relationships and social organization. Lovejoy suggested that the key event in the early evolution of hominids was the transition to monogamy, that is, to the formation of stable married couples [Markov, 2011a]. This hypothesis, and also the research of Russian ethnologist Marina Butovskaya [Butovskaya, 2004] and other scientists suggest that along with microevolution (neuroevolution and the development of means of communication) and macroevolution, the continuous and nonlinear complication of sociocultural environments and different technologies played a significant role in noogenesis. The complication of environments of Intelligent Matter can be considered from different points of view [Joas & Knöbl, 2011]: 1. As the development of the aggregate of the forms of Capital, as in the understanding of the most influential sociologist of the second half of the 20th century, Pierre Bourdieu [Bourdieu, 2005; Joas & Knöbl, 2011]. It is especially important from this point of view that cultural capital, as Pierre Bourdieu sees it, can exist in three forms: in the embodied state, i.e. in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body; in the objectified state, i.e. in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc. which are the trace or realization of theories or critiques of these theories, problematics, etc., and finally, in the institutionalized state, i.e. in the form of objectification [Bourdieu, 2005]. 2. As cognitive evolution, as in the understanding of one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper [Popper, 1984; Popper, 2008]. Popper considered the evolution of knowledge to be the evolution of three worlds:

110

Chapter Seven

1. The world of physical objects and events, including biological entities. 2. The world of mental objects and events (human consciousness). 3. The world of objective knowledge (the world of the objective contents of thoughts). Unlike Plato, for whom the third world is primary, for Popper the third world arises as a consequence of the interaction of the first and second worlds. However, after the emergence of the third world, it acquires autonomy and science lives in it and develops. The third world affects the physical world as it affects the minds of people. According to Popper, an entire civilization can be considered the realization of the ideal objects. 3. As the evolution of memes, as in the understanding of the evolutionary biologist Clinton Richard Dawkins [Dawkins, 1989; Dawkins, 1989a]. In 1976, in his book “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins proposed the idea that all cultural information consists of basic units (memes), just as biological information consists of genes. According to Dawkins, like genes, memes are subject to natural selection, mutation and artificial selection. There are other options to consider regarding the complication of the environments of Intelligent Matter. A large-scale analysis of major modern social theories, which consider the stages of the continuous and nonlinear complication of sociocultural environments and technologies, was carried out in a piece of historical and philosophical research by the German sociologists Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl: “Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures” [Joas & Knöbl, 2011], as well as in the fundamental work of Ivan Leonov: “Worlds of Macrohistory: Ideas, Patterns, Gestalt” [Leonov, 2013]. Different options for the systematization of the complication of the environments of Intelligent Matter have been realized in works which have become classics by authors such as: Pitirim Sorokin, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), Fernand Braude, Oswald Spengler, Lev Gumilev, Arnold Toynbee, Immanuel Wallerstein, and many others.

*** To sum up, we have given arguments for the isolation of Intelligent Matter as the third state of matter known to modern science, as well as attempting to systematize the facts in a model of noogenesis. The author realistically appraises the descriptiveness, incompleteness and illogicality of this model of noogenesis, but as far as he knows, it is the first attempt to bring

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

111

together all the factual material from neuroevolution, sociocultural evolution and the evolution of technology. The consideration of evolution as complication, as well as the systematization of the facts on the basis of the universals of evolution, gives the author the right to affirm that, despite the apparent irreducibility of biological evolution and noogenesis, analogies can be drawn between them (as well as between the models of any other state of matter). Let us consider them: 1. In both models, the structure of matter is complicated continuously and nonlinearly. That is to say, in Living Matter, the two-layer structure is complicated (from simple molecular-genetic connections to complex nervous systems), and in Intelligent Matter, the three-layer structure is complicated (from a neural ensemble of the subconscious to a neural ensemble of consciousness).3 The three-layer structure of Intelligent Matter gave it the ability to imprint, process, store and transmit external environmental conditions to future generations, as well as to realize inner creative potentials in the artificial products of activity. That is, in structures of Intelligent Matter the ability to construct external environmental conditions was developed. In evolution, the emphasis has shifted from the complication of genetic programs, aimed at the adaptation of organisms to environmental conditions, to a change (a transformation for themselves) of ecosystem. The stability of Intelligent Matter is provided by the continuous and nonlinear complication of artificial products of activity, and also various types of interaction in the sociocultural environment and technosphere. On the scale of Earth, on the basis of a huge amount of research material, we can observe the continuous and nonlinear complication of the threelayered mind system. On the one hand, as before, the multicellular structure of a biological organism (a body) is still complex. The complication of the sociocultural environment and technology freed bodies from the action of natural selection, but it put forward new demands. At present, instead of maximum adaptability to external environmental conditions, the maximum human lifespan is required from a body. The longer the duration of ontogeny of the structure of Intelligent Matter, the more difficult and competitive the individual inner creative potentials, 3

The incomparability of complication in living and Intelligent Matter is apparent. Take into account that living matter was complicated for more than three billion years, and Intelligent Matter only five million years.

112

Chapter Seven

implemented in the artificial products of activity – the more (scaled) they are presented in the construction process of external environmental conditions. This is the reason that, with each generation, a body loses its natural characteristics. In a body, natural organs are often replaced by artificial ones. We assume from this perspective that, due to the dominance of artificial structures over natural ones, bodies will significantly change their anatomical, morphological and physiological characteristics, and will be able to ensure the longest duration of ontogeny. The limit of one hundred years of active and productive conscious activity, in our opinion, will be overcome in the near future. On the other hand, the changed demands on the functions of a body, as well as the predominance of the new sociocultural and technological environment, will influence genetic programs and the methods of their inheritance to a certain extent. Nobody has cancelled biological evolution, but now it takes place in an entirely new sociocultural environment and amongst constantly complicating technologies. Accordingly, most of the laws of biological evolution have lost their significance. Thirdly, it actively develops neuron structures, specializing in the construction of external environmental conditions. We are talking about the intensive development of the speech centers of the brain that are involved in the production and/or perception of oral and/or written speech; short-term and long-term memory that allows the preservation of the wealth of acquired skills, abilities and knowledge; the limbic systems, the structures which are involved in the regulating of the functions of internal organs, smell, instinctive behavior, emotions, memory, sleep, wakefulness, etc.; the prefrontal cortex and the subcortical structures connected with it (the head of the caudate nucleus, the mediodorsal thalamic nucleus), which are responsible for complex cognitive and behavioral functions, emotions, executive functions, the evaluation of situations and decision-making, abstract thinking, etc., and the lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex, responsible for strategic planning, decision making and multi-tasking, as well as many other structures of the neural ensemble of consciousness. 2. Along with the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure, in the system of Intelligent Matter, the various types of interaction are intensively developed. If the interactions in the system of Living Matter evolve in chemical environments and more complex ecosystems, then the interactions of Intelligent Matter are complicated in the sociocultural environment, amongst new technologies. The basis of interaction between

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

people in the communication.

sociocultural

and

technological

113

environment

is

Communication is the complex, multi-aspect process of the establishment and development of contact between people (interpersonal communication) and groups (inter-group communication), generated by the requirements of a joint activity. Communication involves at least three different processes: communication, interaction and social perception. These cannot take place beyond the communication activities of the structures of Intelligent Matter. Above, we have pointed out and considered five basic types of communication: material, cognitive, conditional (emotional), motivational and activist. 3. In Living Matter, as in Intelligent Matter, all five main types of interaction are carried out through intermediaries. If the intermediaries of the fundamental interactions of Living Matter are signaling molecules and stimuli, then in Intelligent Matter we can single out three groups of intermediaries: verbal, paraverbal and nonverbal. Verbal intermediaries facilitate communication between people with the help of language constructions that are made up on the basis of certain rules. Language is a sign system that correlates conceptual content to standard sounds (or writing). The process of speech involves, on the one hand, the formation and formulation of thoughts by means of language (speech), and on the other hand, the perception of language constructions and their understanding. Speech is a system of signs, including: a) words with their meanings and b) syntax – a set of rules that helps to put the words in the right order in a sentence. Paraverbal (paralinguistic) intermediaries are neither part of the language nor speech units; however, in varying degrees, they can be found in each speech unit, accompanying speech. There are three types of paralinguistic intermediary: a) phonatory – tempo, timbre, speech volume, pauses and placeholders (for example “uh”, “um” etc.), melody of speech, dialect, social or idiolectal peculiarities of the articulation of sounds; b) kinetic – the gestures, posture, facial expressions of the speaker; c) graphic – features of handwriting, graphic additions to letters, substitution of letters by signs (“&”, “§”, etc.).

114

Chapter Seven

Nonverbal intermediaries are exchanges of information between individuals without the help of speech or language means, presented in any symbolic form. Nonverbal intermediaries (facial expressions, gestures, posture, intonation etc.) fulfil the functions of additions and substitutions of speech, as well as the transmission of the emotional states of the communication partners. Nonverbal intermediaries are “body language” and include a wide range of means and ways of transmitting or exchanging information, which includes all forms of human self-expression. 4. The dominant influence on the continuous and nonlinear block complication of the structure and types of interaction of Intelligent Matter is exerted by external environmental conditions. As in previous states of matter, the impact of the external environment takes place through the changing criteria of regulatory compromise. If for the structures of Living Matter the development of the external environment is connected mainly with the development of abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic factors of the environment, then for intelligent material, the development of the external environment is connected with the complication of factors of the sociocultural environment: politics, economy, education, culture, changes of moral regulations, religious traditions, and the complicating of technology in all spheres of human activity. 5. Like Living Matter, the system of Intelligent Matter consists of invariant hierarchies that are different from each other in terms of the complexity of their structures and types of interaction. The development of the noosphere is the continuous and nonlinear complication of the hierarchies of the system: Neural Ensemble of Subconsciousness ĺ Neural Ensemble of Consciousness ĺ Moving Forward The complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of Intelligent Matter pass only the first stages. On the scale of Earth, noogenesis has lasted five million years in all. If we take into account the fact that the complication of inert matter and Living Matter on the scale of the Solar System was carried out over three billion years, it is difficult even to imagine what structures and functions the Intelligent Matter of Earth will attain in the future. 6. As in Living Matter, every hierarchy of Intelligent Matter manifests itself in its functions. If the development of the functions of Living Matter

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

115

was connected to the complication of genetic programs and their methods of inheritance, the functions of Intelligent Matter are different. They are connected with the continuous and nonlinear complication of the methods of imprinting, processing, storing and transmitting external environmental conditions, as well as the ways of implementing internal creative potentials in the form of artificial products of activity. If the biosphere is a uniform, integrated database of genetic programs of varying complexity, then the noosphere is a uniform base of knowledge, skills and abilities, i.e. artificial products of activity, made and accumulated by mankind in the course of its history. The stability of the structures of Intelligent Matter in the material world is provided by complex processes. Once again, through the example of Earth, we can single out the following: Firstly, while the structure of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness is becoming more complicated, their manifestations – the artificial products of activity – are also becoming more complicated. From primitive man to the modern state of emotional man [Bazaluk, 2002]; we can observe the continuous and nonlinear complication of the products of human activity. According to Alexander Butuk, in the 1980s more than 25 million kinds of product were produced in the USSR, and in highly developed countries, about a billion products [Butuk, 2000]. The complication of products of human activity is accompanied by both a quantitative increase of products and their qualitative perfection. The complication of modern technologies in all spheres of human activity, on the one hand, is the result of the continuous and nonlinear complication of the neural ensemble of consciousness; on the other hand, it is accompanied by the constantly increasing needs of the brain in receiving, processing, storing and transmitting information, as well as the implementation of individual internal creative potentials in daily activity. Second, the methods of transmission of artificial products of activity are also being complicated. Products produced by human activity were and are transmitted in different ways: a) In material form. They are the subject of labor, ways of life, leisure, culture, etc. The scientific use of the term “technosphere” to some extent reveals the set of products that have been and are being created by human activity;

116

Chapter Seven

b) In virtual material form. This method of transmission appeared after the formation of the logosphere (semiosphere). Starting from quipus and finishing with modern multi-billion book editions, IT technologies, the internet and others, the virtual material method of transmission of the artificial products of human activity denotes with the help of symbols, gives meaning, stores and transmits different semantic structures, namely, memes. c) In virtual form, i.e. objects, subjects, categories, relationships, actions, etc. imitated (emulated) with the help of other forms for different purposes. Virtual forms can be created only by a game of the imagination of human thought. Affecting the input devices of the recipient (in the case of a human, these are his or her sensory organs), virtual forms imitate actually existing objects, sometimes achieving indistinguishability from the original. Thirdly, the artificial products of activity accumulate, and based on this accumulation, they are systematized. We are talking about the “cycles of great cultures”, according to Oswald Spengler [Spengler, 1998; Spengler, 1999], about the “scientific revolutions” of Thomas Kuhn [Kuhn, 1977] and about other understandings of “cultural revolutions”. The periodic large-scale systematization of artificial products of activity rebuilds the structure of the system of Intelligent Matter, perfecting the noosphere and its components: the logosphere and the technosphere [Bazaluk, 2010]. 7. The continuous and nonlinear complication of creative activity, aimed at the learning, processing, storage, and transmission to future generations of artificial products of human activity, as well as the complication of types of communication and the sociocultural technological environment, is connected with large-scale self-realization of individual creative potentials that lead to a qualitative change of the structure of the noosphere: noogenesis. 8. Noogenesis, the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of the noosphere, is a natural process, the result of which is the transition of Intelligent Matter from the use of resources on a separate cosmic object to space colonization. The research of the representatives of Russian cosmism [Russian cosmism, 1993], in particular the basic ideas that constitute a paradigm of Russian cosmism: “the world (including life and humanity) is a naturally evolving system” [Fedorov, 1982; Semenov,

The Evolution Model of Intelligent Matter

117

2004]; the idea of “spreading a person in the ether”4 [Tsiolkovsky, 2008]; the “conquest of interplanetary space” [Kondratyuk, 1947; Kondratyuk, 1997], and the ideas of “a plurality of worlds” as stated by Hugh Everett III [Byrne, 2010]; “neurogenetic evolution” by Timothy Leary [Leary, 2000], and “human resettlement” [Krichevsky, 2012] lay the foundations for the understanding of noogenesis not only as a planetary process, but also as a cosmic one. In the work “Space Travelling – Travelling Mentality”, the author tried to explain to the fullest that if the resources of Living Matter are limited by the effectiveness of genetic programs and their methods of inheritance, then the resources of the activity of Intelligent Matter are immense [Bazaluk, 2012]. The continuously complicating neural ensemble of consciousness is in a state where it is able to create the world of artificial products of activity, and in this world of their own construction, to ensure their self-realization. As such, the noosphere is connected with a cosmic object only in the early stages of the three-layer structure of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness. Based on the perfection of the world of artificial structures (the sociocultural environment, technology), dependence on the body as a carrier of neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness from biological evolution is weakened. The body adapts to artificial external environmental conditions, and the noosphere is exempt from the energy and material resources etc. of the separate cosmic object in which its formation happened. If the biosphere is “attached” to cosmic objects (in fact, the evolution of Living Matter has a predominantly adaptive character), then the highly developed noosphere, as the result of noogenesis, creates artificial cosmic objects and co-evolves with the structures of inert matter. The evolution of Intelligent Matter is aimed at the creation of the world of artificial structures, and depending on the complication of technology, the world of artificial structures can adapt to any conditions of existence. We assume that in the universe there are a certain multitude of highly developed noospheres which humanity cannot properly identify by virtue of its own imperfection. 9. The hierarchical evolution of Intelligent Matter (noogenesis) is regulated by the laws of inert matter and Living Matter, as well as the private laws of neuroevolution and sociocultural evolution, which are actual only in the systems of Intelligent Matter.

4

A term used in the 20th century to refer to the cosmos.

118

Chapter Seven

10. Having reached the limits of perfection, the organizations of the “mother” state of matter naturally transform into a qualitatively new state – the “daughter”. Living Matter, having reached the limit of perfection, transformed into the state of Intelligent Matter, and Intelligent Matter, having reached the peak of perfection, transformed into a state of X1, is unknown (or as yet unidentified) by modern science.5 The “daughter” of the system of Intelligent Matter of a state X1 includes invariant hierarchies with features uncharacteristic of the “mother” state of matter (structure, types of interaction and environment). 11. The co-evolution of the noosphere and the sphere of existence of state X1 (and in turn, the co-evolution of the cosmic biospheres and noospheres), helps to consolidate the “daughter” state of matter in certain areas of the “mother” state and the formation of continuously developing spheres of influence.

5

The evolution of states of matter on the scale of the Solar System enables the author to postulate that the Intelligent Matter of Earth passes only the first stage of its complications. In the future, there will be at least three billion years of further evolution.

CHAPTER EIGHT TRANSITION STATES OF MATTER: BIOINERT MATTER

Work on the evolution models of inert matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter, as well as on the universal model of evolution or evolving matter, led to the discovery of transition states of matter, providing a regular transition from one state of matter to another. In our opinion, the confusion in the systematization of the structures of matter, as well as in the understanding of the evolution of matter itself, was caused by the existence of transition states of matter. The feature of transition states of matter is that they remain, in the hierarchy of continuously and nonlinearly complicating, in the “mother” state of matter structurally and functionally, but at the same time, in their organization and manifestations, traits which become related with the organizations of the “daughter” state of matter can be observed. This “relationship” is easily explained, namely as a result of the complication of the structure of the substance, types of interaction and environments of the transition state of matter under the influence of the variability of the factors and the causes of evolution that leads to the formation of the initial and determining space of the “daughter” state of matter. So, the simplest biomolecules originally emerged in Inert Matter, and only then, as a result of evolution, were they transformed into the two-layer molecular-genetic space of protocells. Neurons and the nervous system initially emerged in the structure of Living Matter, and only with time, as a result of the complication of the factors and causes of evolution and, therefore, their influence, did they transform into the three-layer space of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness. Thus, having emerged and reached the limits of perfection in the “mother” system, transition states of matter create the conditions for the formation of the “daughter” state of matter, continuing to play an important role in it. This fact was proved in research by Alexander Chizhevsky, who, in the early 20th century, paid attention to how easily and on what scale bacteria reacted to cosmic processes [Chizhevsky, 1995]. Half a century later, the

120

Chapter Eight

American biologist Lynn Margulis, creator of the modern version of the endosymbiotic theory, found that bacteria not only sensitively react to any changes in near-Earth space, but they also freely transmit hereditary traits (from one to another) in global exchange networks which differ incredibly in power and efficiency [Capra, 2003]. In collaboration with Dorion Sagan, her son, she writes: “The last fifty years or so, scientists watched as [bacteria] quickly and easily transmitted different bits of genetic material to other individuals. Each bacterium at any given time has at its disposal additional genes that sometimes got to it from completely different strains to perform functions that are not provided for in its own DNA. Some genetic bits are recombined with the own genes of a cell, others are sent on... Owing to this ability, all the world’s bacteria essentially have access to a single gene pool and hence to the adaptive mechanisms of the entire bacteria kingdom” [Capra, 2003: p.224].According to Lynn Margulis, this is a global gene exchange, a recombination of DNA, which allows the stable coexistence of Living Matter in the bosom of the “mother” inert system. The more perfect the structure, types of interaction and environments of the “daughter” state of matter are, the more the influence of the transition state of matter is reduced. For example, in the initial two-layer space of protocells, the laws of molecular evolution that are typical for Bioinert Matter (the transition state between inert and Living Matter) continue to play an important role. However, when it comes to the complication of Living Matter, the formation of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, etc., the influence of transition structures is lost, and Living Matter develops according to the laws of modern evolutionary synthesis. The same picture is observed in the transition of Living Matter into Intelligent Matter. The biointelligent transition state of matter, organizationally having emerged and reached the limits of perfection within the structure of Living Matter (the emergence of neurons, and in consequence nervous systems of various complexity), transforms into the three-layer structure of a neural ensemble of subconsciousness, and continues to play rather a significant role in its functioning. However, in the work of a neural ensemble of consciousness, the role of the two-layer central nervous system has already become less essential. Along with the three states of matter (inert, living and intelligent), modern science knows two transition states of matter: Bioinert and BioIntelligent Matter. In this chapter, we consider the main characteristics of Bioinert Matter.

Transition States of Matter: Bioinert Matter

121

The concept of Bioinert Matter was introduced into scientific usage by Vladimir Vernadsky in the early 20th century. He describes it as follows: a “...bioinert substance is created at the same time by living organisms and inert processes, representing the dynamic equilibrium systems of both. Such are all organic and almost all other waters of the biosphere, oil, soil, residual soil, etc.” [Vernadsky, 1987: p.51]. When working on the model of evolving matter, the author not only replaced the concept of “bioinert substances” with the concept “Bioinert Matter”, but also significantly changed and expanded its content. By “Bioinert Matter” the author understands not the products of the interaction of inert and Living Matter (that occurred, but much later), but a great number of transition structures which emerged as a result of the natural evolution of Inert Matter and as a result of the interaction of continuously emerging generations of bioinert structures with Inert Matter. As a result of the co-evolution of Bioinert and Inert Matter, as well as the continuous and nonlinear complication of new bioinert structures, types of interaction and environments on the scale of Earth, the emergence of qualitatively new organizations became possible, organizations with structures and functions uncharacteristic for either Inert Matter or Bioinert Matter: Living Matter. Bioinert Matter began to emerge on a massive scale in those parts of the evolving universe in which Inert Matter entered the stage of the formation of stars and star systems (in the standard model of the universe, this is known as de Sitter expansion). It is at this stage of evolution that the physical preconditions for the formation of cosmic objects, and on their surfaces, of molecular and macromolecular compounds, came about. Interacting in certain physical conditions with the structures of Inert Matter, these molecular and macromolecular compounds created favorable conditions for the physical and chemical reactions that led to the emergence of the first organic compounds. Modern science has a sufficiently deep understanding of the features of the formation and development of Bioinert Matter, as exemplified in the theory of hypercycles by Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster [Eigen & Schuster, 1982; Capra, 2003]. The Russian biologist Vladimir Levchenko proved, based on paleontological, geological, paleoclimatic, paleoecological, astrophysical and other data (i.e. through their combination), that the physical evolution of the biosphere can be explained by the influence of

Chapter Eight

122

external factors, namely astrophysical; more specifically, the following two factors [Levchenko, 2003: p.66]: 1) The scale factors of the galaxy, which influence geological processes and the separation of CO2 from the bowels of the Earth over a period of about 200 million years; 2) The scale factors of the Solar System, which cause a decrease in insulation and climatic variation on Earth every few tens of thousands of years. The climate scientists Milutin Milankovitch, Otto Pettersson, Hartmut Heinrich, Vasily Morgun and others created acting models, linking the influence of space on the planet’s atmosphere to the peculiarities of the development of living and Intelligent Matter on a planetary scale [Morgun, 2014; Morgun, 2014a]. According to the Russian biologists Michael Gusev and Lyudmila Mineeva, the evolution of Bioinert Matter led to the emergence of three main processes [Gusev & Mineeva, 1978; Gusev & Mineeva, 2003]: 1. The asymmetry of living organisms; 2. The evolution of catalytic activity; 3. Matrix synthesis. These exact processes, together with others, led to the formation of a protocell, the initial space of Living Matter. A significant analysis of Inert Matter, Bioinert Matter and Living Matter, as well as the characteristics of their interactions, was conducted in research by Vladimir Vernadsky [Vernadsky, 1975; Vernadsky, 1977; Vernadsky, 1987; Vernadsky, 2002]. The evolution of Bioinert Matter is the basis of abiogenesis, the initial hypothesis of the modern theory of the origin of life. We consider the most important achievements in this direction to be: -

In the 1920s, the Soviet biologist and biochemist Alexander Oparin [Oparin, 1968; Oparin, 1977] suggested that in solutions of highly molecular compounds, zones of increased concentration, which are relatively separate from the external environment and can support an exchange with it, can spontaneously be formed. He called them coacervate drops, or just coacervates. Along with the research of

Transition States of Matter: Bioinert Matter

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

123

English biologist John Haldane, this theory encouraged a large number of experiments, illustrating the possible ways in which organic compounds could have formed and evolved in the conditions of primitive Earth. The first confirmation of the possibility of the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules from the gas phase by irradiation in a cyclotron was obtained by American biochemist and Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Melvin Calvin in 1951 [Calvin, 1971]. In 1953, with the help of a gas-discharge chamber, the American physicist and Nobel laureate Harold Clayton Urey and his student, the American chemist Stanley Miller, carried out the classic MillerUrey experiment, which confirmed the possibility of the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules. They carried out the abiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organic substances in conditions that reproduced the conditions of primitive Earth. In the middle of the 20th century, American biochemists Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose and others, using special techniques of heating, were able to obtain a compound of amino acids which they called “proteinoids” [Fox & Dose, 1975]. In 1981, the American molecular biologists and Nobel Prize laureates in Chemistry Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman reproduced autocatalytic RNA-division, in which “ribozymes” unite catalysis and information in a molecule. They cut themselves out of a longer chain of RNA and unite the remaining ends again. In 1986, the American physicist, biochemist and molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Walter Gilbert developed the idea of the RNA world. In 1986, German chemist Gunther von Kidrovski presented the first self-replicating system based on DNA. This was an important contribution to the understanding of the growth functions of selfreplicating systems. In the 1980s, the German physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Manfred Eigen, together with the Austrian chemist Peter Schuster, developed the theory of hypercycles [Eigen & Schuster, 1982]. Hypercycles are themselves pure chemistry, but already show some signs of living: the circulation of substances and energy, reproduction with inheritance information, and adaptability to changing conditions. Hypercycles are subject to Darwinian natural selection, but not at the level of species; instead, at the level of molecules, that is to say, this is a hypothesis of the

Chapter Eight

124

-

-

-

molecular evolution that led to the creation of the first living cell, using the genetic code for matrix protein synthesis. In 1989, the American chemist Julius Rebeck Jr. devised synthetic, self-replicating molecules (Aminoadenosintriazidester). In the early 1990s, American explorer John Corliss proved that thermal springs in the sea supply the energy and chemicals which make chemical evolution possible, independent of the environment. It turned out that, as far as we know to date, the thermal springs of the seas were the environment for the original archaebacteria (Archaea), based on many signs. In the early 1990s, the German lawyer Günter Wächtershäuser proposed the Iron Sulfide World Hypothesis. The basic idea of the Iron Sulfide World Hypothesis is that the origin of life passed through the following stages: 1) an aqueous stream containing dissolved volcanic gases (carbon monoxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) was heated to 100°C and subjected to high pressure; 2) this stream passed through rocks made of transition metals (iron sulfide or nickel sulfide, and 3) after some time, the formation of catalytic metal-peptides started. In 2003, German chemists Wolfgang Wiegand, Mark Derr and others showed that iron sulfide can catalyze the synthesis of ammonia from molecular nitrogen.

The author believes that the system of inert matter ends in simple molecules of monomers, the structure of which is formed by no more than ten atoms. In turn, the simplest structures of Living Matter are the most complex biopolymers and their compounds, which include more than ten million atoms. The niche between Inert Matter and Living Matter belongs to Bioinert Matter. All that modern science knows about the structure and function of molecule monomers, macromolecules, the simplest biopolymers, and the features of the continuous and nonlinear block complication of their structures, types of communication and environments suggests that it forms the content of Bioinert Matter.

CHAPTER NINE BIOINTELLIGENT MATTER

If research into Bioinert Matter began at the beginning of the 20th century, then BioIntelligent Matter, as a transition state between living and Intelligent Matter, is a new concept. The author introduced it into scientific usage in 2005 in the monograph “The Universe: Living and Intelligent Matter” [Bazaluk, 2005]. The scientific base of the evolution model of BioIntelligent Matter makes up the researches in neurobiology and other directions of neuroscience which deal with neuroevolution. Through the analogy of Bioinert Matter to BioIntelligent Matter, the author refers to all structures of Living Matter, including the nervous system, up to the subconsciousness of primitive man, the initial and determining three-layer neural ensemble of Intelligent Matter. The entire list of multicellular organisms from cnidarians and ctenophores to mammals consists of neuroevolution stages relating to the BioIntelligent transition state of matter. In our view, there are three main stages in the evolution of BioIntelligent Matter: 1. The initial formation of nerve cells, i.e. the development of their structure and functions; 2. Cell adhesion, the simplest diffuse nervous systems; 3. The evolution of the simplest neuron systems to the level of the multi-functional structures of the central nervous systems of mammals. Like all transition states of matter, BioIntelligent Matter was complexified over about a billion years. Its evolution took place in close interaction with other highly developed structures of Living Matter. Biointelligent structures are linked with Living Matter by: 1) a community of morphological and physiological characteristics; 2) the dominance of

126

Chapter Nine

inherited programs, eukaryotic cells and their populations, etc. in their way of life. BioIntelligent Matter is connected with Intelligent Matter by cephalization and reflexion, a conditionally highlighted degree of perfection of the nervous system of mammals. If for biointelligent structures reflexion (the unconditioned and conditioned responses of the nervous system) is the highest level of development of the central nervous system, then for representatives of Intelligent Matter, it is the typical neuron structure that is included in the neural ensemble of subconsciousness as a constituent part (along with other, more advanced neuron structures). Owing to the central nervous system, the neural ensemble of subconsciousness has control over the biological functions of an organism. In the monograph “Evolution. Thinking. Consciousness” it was highlighted that: the “...genome evolution of organisms (at least in mammals), if it is considered as the resultant mass of events of natural selection, seems to have been increasingly connected not with the morphological changes in various organs, but morphological changes in the brain, i.e. it was mainly a characteristic of neuroevolution” [Evolution, 2004]. According to the authors of the monograph, neuroevolution provided the creation of a sort of “material basis” for the evolution of the cognitive functions of the brain – for example, learning, remembering adaptively valuable cognitive information, thinking and so on. Since the mid-1980s, using new methods of genetic marking, neurobiologists have begun to make systematic attempts to find genes that might be involved in cognitive processes [Genome evolution, 1986: 9-10]. Their greatest attention was attracted by genes that provide growth and the differentiation of cells, i.e. genes that are responsible for the development of organisms. It turned out that some of these genes (“silent” after the implementation of their functions) were re-included in the brain in a collision of organisms with cognitive problems (requiring, for example, memory or learning) that already had gene regulators. They are activated simultaneously in millions of nerve cells involved in the implementation of the relevant cognitive functions. Certainly, gene regulators are unable to change the properties of neurons, or have any impact on the transmission of electrical signals (information) through the synapses. However, they can do it temporarily, for a fairly long period, correcting the repertoire of neurons’ work, altering their properties, affecting the transmission of information and so on, owing to their participation in the synthesis of proteins which are returned to the cell nucleus. They turn on and off dozens of other genes, act like conductors for the phenotypic properties of

BioIntelligent Matter

127

cells for a rather long time, acting as a trigger that starts these processes. Thus, under the influence of cognitive events (e.g., requiring memorization, the work of long-term memory), the genetic properties of brain cells may change for a long period of time. Russian physiologist Nina Danilova and others found out that neuron structures, having emerged later, evolutionarily speaking, do not cancel out the functional activity of previous neuronal structures [Danilova, 2000 p.12]. They are preserved and coexist together, forming layers on top of each other. As an example, we may show the interaction involved in the transmission of information by two classes’ information molecules: mediators and peptides. Mediators, having emerged in the evolution of the nervous system much later than peptides, transmit information over short distances and to an anatomical address: in chain order, from neuron to neuron. Peptides act over long distances and to a chemical address. The important role of peptides in the starting up of various types of behavior has been established, and not only in the simplest types either, for example, in the egg laying behavior of the marine snail Aplysia, but also in the eating behavior of a rabbit. In addition, peptides form the biochemical basis of emotions: fear, anxiety in humans. Both systems transmit information: evolutionarily later this was synaptic and more ancient usage was parasynaptic or peptidergic, they coexist in higher animals, interacting closely with each other. Thus, BioIntelligent Matter is a great number of multicellular organisms, having a nervous system of some complexity. Evolution of BioIntelligent Matter is neuroevolution, starting from the emergence of the first neurons and finishing with the most complex multi-functional structure of the central nervous system, which provides unconditioned and conditioned responses in mammals. The stages of neuroevolution in biointelligent structures are considered in research works by: Elkhonon Goldberg, Stephen Kuffler, John Nicholls, Robert Martin, Bruce Wallace, Paul Fuchs and others. The fundamental differences between the brains of higher animals and humans are looked at in the works of, for example, the French neuropsychologist Stanislas Dehaene [Dehaene, 2011], the American psychologist Stephen Kosslyn [Kosslyn, 1980], the Canadian-American psychologist Steven Pinker [Pinker, 2004] and others.

128

Chapter Nine

Complication of the structure of BioIntelligent Matter was manifested in new types of interaction – in complication of animal behavior. Behavior is the ability of biointelligent structures to change their actions under the influence of internal and external factors. Behavior has great adaptive significance, allowing animals to avoid negative environmental factors. Behavior is the subject of a wide range of sciences: from psychology, ethology, zoopsychology and comparative psychology to behavioral ecology. The classical researches in this field are considered to be the works of Nobel Laureates in physiology and medicine: Konrad Lorenz, Karl Ritter, Nicolaas “Niko” Tinbergen, Ivan Pavlov and many others. Summing up the consideration of transition states of matter, we note the following: 1. If we compare the molecular structure of Inert Matter, and the multicellular organisms of Living Matter, we find an obvious regularity – the right for further development (complication) is obtained by organizations that carry out the circulation of information, energy and substance more actively, as well as being prone to active movement. 2. The transition state of matter is one of the forms of structures and interactions and environments of the “mother” state of matter. Up to a certain period of time it is distinguished by nothing special. Only as a result of qualitative changes in the “mother” system, connected in particular with the variability of the factors and causes of evolution, transition states of matter obtain an advantage in complication and reach the next level – the “daughter” state of matter. 3. Analysis of complication of states of matter at the scale of Earth indicates that the complication of transition states of matter into the formation of the “daughter” state, takes approximately up to 1 billion years. 4. Thus, by the concept of “transition state of matter”, we indicate such structures, types of interaction and environments of the “mother” state of matter, which in the conditions of variability of the factors and causes of evolution differ from other organizations by a more active circulation of information, energy and substance, and that move more actively through space. Namely, these structures, interactions and environments, as a result of further complication, can reach a new level – the “daughter” state of matter.

CHAPTER TEN THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE: THE MODEL “EVOLVING MATTER”

Having considered the evolution models of Inert Matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter, as well two transition states of matter – Bioinert Matter and BioIntelligent Matter, the author came very close to a new understanding of the evolution of our Universe. Beforehand, we shall summarize the well-known facts: 1. Complications of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments in our Universe have been carried out by hotbeds, continuously and nonlinearly, over approximately 13.7 billion years. 2. Complication of the structure and functions of the Universe happens under the influence of the same (Universal) factors and causes of evolution, as explored in Chapter 4. Thus, in the course of evolution, complication of the very factors and causes of evolution themselves happened, which led to the formation and development of the nth number of states of matter. 3. Each state of matter is a new level of complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments. As a result of the complication of each new state of matter comes the formation of invariant hierarchies, providing fixation of the state of matter in the structure of the Universe and its co-evolution with other states of matter. Each new state of matter brings new opportunities for the organization of the circulation of substances, energy and information, as well as ways of moving in space. 4. On an example of the Solar System only one sequence of complication of the structure of the Universe can be clearly seen: Inert Matter ĺ Living Matter ĺ Intelligent Matter. Or: Inert Matter ĺ Bioinert Matter ĺ Living Matter ĺ BioIntelligent Matter ĺ Intelligent Matter. Modern understanding

130

Chapter Ten

of the evolution and co-evolution of these states of matter in varying degrees is considered in the standard model of the Universe, the synthetic theory of evolution and the concepts of noogenesis. 5. At the scale of the Solar System the states of matter have been formed sequentially, at intervals of approximately 3 billion years: a) Approximately 6 billion years ago the Solar System was formed (the system of Inert Matter); b) Approximately 3.5 billion years ago, as a result of geological evolution, on one of the planets of the Solar System the first biological organisms emerged and gained a foothold. Over 3 billion years the modern biosphere was formed (the system of Living Matter); c) Approximately 5 million years ago, as a result of neuroevolution, on the basis of the highly developed biosphere of Earth, the first structures of Intelligent Matter emerged. This started the formation of the noosphere (the system of Intelligent Matter). Thus, the three states of matter known to modern science in an example of complication of the Solar System, can be represented by the following figure, like the arrows of time (Fig. 1):

1. 2. 3.

Figure1. Figures designate: 1 - Inert Matter; 2 - Living Matter; 3 - Intelligent Matter. The bases of nested cones are bifurcation points, at which are acceptable transitional states of matter, but they overcome the structures, types of interaction and environments which are not typical for the “mother” system by the functions.

The Structure of the Universe: The Model “Evolving Matter”

131

We can extrapolate the results at the scale of the Solar System onto the structure of the Universe. In the base of the model of complication of the Universe (the model Evolving Matter), we laid the universal factors and causes of evolution, established by us, their ability to variability, as well as observations and conclusions being received as the result of the modeling of continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of Inert Matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter at the scale of the Solar System. As a result of the formalization of information known to Modern Science and various combinations, including this information, we come to the following conclusions: 1. Inert Matter is not the initial state of matter. Apparently, it was preceded by another state of matter which is represented by the concept “Dark Matter” in modern cosmology. Our Universe as the “daughter” state of matter is nested in “Dark Matter” and complicated under its direct influence. Thus, it is more correct to represent the evolution of our Universe as continuous and nonlinear complication of four states of matter (Fig. 2):

Y

1

2

3

Figure 2. Y – The state of matter which preceded our Universe (so-called “Dark Matter”), 1 - Inert Matter (our Universe), 2 - Living Matter, 3 - Intelligent Matter.

132

Chapter Ten

2. As we know from the previously considered transition states of matter (Bioinert and BioIntelligent Matter), the “daughter” state of matter, at the earliest stages of its development, includes certain elements of the structure, types of interaction and environments of the “mother” state of matter. Following this regularity, we assume that a space vacuum as the initial and determining space of Inert Matter, consists of the manifestations of the state of matter Y, of which and at the scale of which, are carried out the continuous and nonlinear complications of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments of our Universe. The author admits that different states of plasma and other manifestations of “dark matter” are environments of the state of matter Y. 3. Taking into account that almost the whole domain of knowledge about the structure of the Universe and evolution was received as a result of research from the past, we suppose that the number of processes and phenomena ascribed to our Universe, and the features of its complication, in fact, belong to the system of the state of matter Y at the scale of which our Universe is complicating. Among them, gravitation, as well as other features. 4. The author believes that the Universe, under the influence of the “mother” state of matter Y and the universal factors and causes of evolution, just as (by analogy) observable states of matter at the scale of the Solar System, are being complicated not on the whole, but by singular “hotbeds”. In some parts of the Universe the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments are in one evolutionary state (e.g. at the scale of the Milky Way and the Solar System, in particular), in other parts, in a state, more or less, of complication. If we extrapolate numerical values of the complication of states of matter at the scale of the Solar System to the scale of the Universe (more precisely on its separate “hotbeds”), we obtain figures and conclusions which may undermine any scientist’s reputation. However, as in our research we use scientific and philosophical methodology and do not affirm, but only make assumptions as part of the formal model, we can announce the results. If the age of the Universe which naturally arose in the preceding (the “mother”) state of matter Y, is 13.7 billion years, then on average, every three billion years, in its separate “hotbeds” a new state of matter appears (in the result of variability of the factors and causes of evolution). After the simplest of calculations, it turns out that Intelligent Matter, which is at the scale of the Solar System, is only beginning to be

The Structure of the Universe: The Model “Evolving Matter”

133

formed; in other parts of the Universe it is complicated by more than 3 billion years. Moreover, on its basis the fourth state of matter arose (called ɏ1), which had also been developing for 3 billion years and laid the basis for the formation and development of the fifth state of matter. Thus, it is more correct to represent evolution in which our Universe is involved as the consistent complication of five states of matter (Fig. 3).

Y

1

2

3

ɏ1

Figure 3. Y – The state of matter which preceded our Universe (so-called “dark matter”), 1 - Inert Matter, 2 - Living Matter, 3 - Intelligent Matter, X1 - state of matter which follows after Intelligent Matter.

5. Extrapolation of observations over the complication of states of matter at the scale of the Solar System on the structure of the Universe comes to one more conclusion. Continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments may promote understanding of the concept of “dark energy”, which, according to modern representations, makes up 74% of our Universe. We paid our attention to how, at the scale of the biosphere and then the noosphere, the circulation of matter, energy and information, if they are concentrated,

134

Chapter Ten

were reduced to the notorious singularity point from which our Universe is supposed to have originated. Let us assume that the Intelligent Matter of Earth has really been evolving for 3 billion years. However, as cosmologists predict that in 1 billion years a biological life on Earth, in the modern understanding, due to the Sun’s heating (whose activity increases by about 10% every billion years) will become basically impossible. Therefore, in the struggle for existence, the Intelligent Matter of Earth has to reach to a new, cosmic scale. As the future of Intelligent Matter is connected with the cosmic scale, it is possible to conclude that the arrival of the next state of matter X1, and especially ɏ2, arising on the basis of Intelligent Matter, are possible processes that can happen and may lead to the formation of the new Universe (or to the states of matter Y which were preceding our Universe). Following the logic of formalization and combination by obtained elements of a formal model, we postulate that the so-called “new Universes” are born in certain periods of time. If it is assumed that the cycle of continuous and nonlinear complication of states of matter in the separate “hotbeds” consists of six variable transitions of the factors and causes of evolution (perhaps give or take a little either way), it can be assumed that “new Universes” are born approximately every 18 billion years, without cancelling the “old Universes”. 6. If it is assumed that the variability of the factors and causes of evolution really differs in different “hotbeds” of the Universe, then the view of our Universe changes considerably. It turns out that the Universe, which is “observed” by Man, is no more than a fragment of heterogeneous space of “Universes” which are in different stages of complication. While the Milky Way with the adjacent space passes one stage of continuous and nonlinear complication, in other “hotbeds” of the Universe, the structure of matter, types of interactions and environments are in other stages of complication. That is what a person observes in the cosmos, not accelerating expansion of our Universe, and accelerating expansion of “Universes” – various “hotbeds” of complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments. 7. According to modern concepts, accelerating expansion of the Universe began about 6-5 billion years ago. We assume that the birth of each new state of matter influences on (or at least is connected with) the accelerating expansion of our Universe.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our research, referring to the main statements of the universal theory of evolution, represented in the model Evolving Matter, we will sum up the tasks that were set at the beginning of the monograph: 1. In the first part of the monograph we carried out a historicalphilosophical analysis of the concept “evolution” and also considered the degree of development of the theories of evolution in cosmology, biology, neurobiology and philosophy. As a result of our analysis we have found out that, despite the recognition of the fact of evolution in science and philosophy, the concept “evolution” is understood differently; the factors and causes of evolution are defined in different ways; not in reducibility or irreducibility of micro and macro evolutionary processes, etc. Between scientific and philosophical theories of evolution there is no continuity or correlation of the main results. Each scientific discipline and philosophy considers evolution through its own specialization, and its understanding of absolute truth. 2. In the theory “Evolving Matter”, the author decided to consider evolution not as a development “evolutionary” or “revolutionary”, but as complication. The author defines evolution as complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments and in unity, and in conflict of opposites. Speaking about evolution as complication of the Universe, the author means the complication of three components of physical reality: 1) the structure of matter; 2) types of interaction (relations) between the structure of matter; 3) environments in which complication of these structures and interactions is carried out, and which, in a varying degree, determines the characteristics of environment. Complication of three components of physical reality occurs according to the law of dialectics established by Friedrich Engels – the law of the unity and conflict of opposites: “The movement and development in nature, society and thinking due to the split single interpenetrating opposites and a resolution of the contradictions which arise between them through the struggle” [Marx & Engels, 1961].

Conclusion

136

3. Having considered all factors and causes of evolution in the scientific and philosophical theories, the author chose three main factors and two causes of evolution, which, in his opinion, determine complication of any state of matter (whether known to modern science or not discovered yet). At the same time, the author believes that namely complication of the factors and causes of evolution (Evolution of Evolution) makes the transition from one (the “mother”) state of matter to another (the “daughter”). In the factors of evolution as complication, the author refers to: a) Continuity of self-complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter, supplemented by: - Blocks of continuous self-complication; - Principle of dominance of block continuous self-complication; b) Nonlinear complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter, which is specified by factors: - Hierarchical nonlinear complication; - Direction of nonlinear hierarchical complication; c) Isolation of complication. The author considers that the causes of evolution as complication are: a) Active principle, which is inherently the basis for the initial elements of any state of matter, and forms self-complication; b) Natural selection as the impact of the external environment. Interaction of the internal active principle of any state of matter with natural selection, as the influence of the external environment, forms a regulatory compromise, which is manifested in invariant states of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter. According to the author’s research, all material facts which are used by modern science and philosophy are explained by the established factors and causes of evolution, which allow for speaking about their universality at the scale of the Universe.

The Theory of Evolution

137

4. Studying the modern scientific and philosophical theories of evolution, the author discovered the unity of micro and macroevolutionary processes. The basis of this unity is the variability of the factors and causes of evolution. The transition from the Microcosm to the Macrocosm in Inert Matter, Living Matter, Intelligent Matter and any other states of matter (Y, X1, X2, etc.) is a consequence of the impact of regulatory compromise and variability of the factors and causes of evolution which are complicated during time, complicating the structure and functions of the Universe. 5. Based on the formulated universals of evolution, the author reviewed the material facts which are used by modern science when considering the evolution of the Universe and biological organisms, and offered his understanding of the evolution models of Inert Matter, Living Matter and Intelligent Matter. At the same time, if the consideration of the main stages of complication of Inert Matter and Living Matter was greatly facilitated thanks to the achievements of evolutionary theories in these fields, the author made his model of complication of Intelligent Matter (noogenesis), and he “turned over a new leaf”, and that was reflected in its quality. Systematizing available material facts to modern science, the author has proved: 1) despite the apparent incompatibility of the evolution of the Universe, biosphere and noosphere, in fact it is a unified process of the complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments; 2) all complications of matter that are observed at the scale of the Solar System follow the same factors and causes of evolution; 3) transitions, one state of matter to another: Inert Matter ĺ Living Matter ĺ Intelligent Matter, observed at the scale of Earth, are caused by universals of evolution and their variability; 4) complication of each state of matter begins with the initial and definite space, lasts about 3 billion years and has its limits; 5) having reached the limit of self-complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments, the system of any state of matter creates conditions for the formation of a new “daughter” state of matter. In consequence, the full potential of opportunities for the circulation of matter, energy and information from the “mother” state of matter are expended in the co-evolution with a “daughter” state of matter. 6. During the work on the evolution models of states of matter, the author discovered and considered transition states of matter. Their importance lies in the fact that: 1) Namely, they complicate the systematization of researches, because, on the one hand, they are the highest structures of the “mother” state of matter, on the other hand, they are included in the more

138

Conclusion

perfect blocks of the “daughter” state of matter, partially manifesting in the functions in its activity; 2) Transition states of matter are admitted as closely as possible to the limit of continuous and nonlinear complication of the “mother” state of matter. Modern science does not know of any examples when in the “mother” state of matter, complication of the structure, types of interactions and environments went beyond the hierarchy of a transition state of matter. 7. Having taken for a basis the features of complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments at the scale of the Solar System (Inert Matter ĺ Living Matter ĺ Intelligent Matter), the author extrapolated the obtained results to the scale of the cosmos. The author represented the obtained results in the model Evolving Matter. What new insight does the author offer in his model of the understanding of the world? Firstly, five states of matter are evolving as a minimum, at the scale of the Universe. One of the unknown states of matter to modern science is the “mother” state for our own Universe. The Universe is developing within it, and probably separate features which are ascribed by humanity to the Universe (e.g. gravitation) are actually manifestations of states of matter Y. The second unidentified state of matter by humanity emerged on the basis of highly developed Intelligent Matter. In the model, it is indicated as the state X1. The model admits the state X2, from which is probably formed the state Y and the so-called “new Universe” emerged. These successive stages of complication of the states of matter can include an nth number of chain links, but the result is the birth of a “new Universe” when saving an “old Universe”. Secondly, the Universe perceived by humanity is a fragment of space in which continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments are happening. This complication is happening through “hotbeds”, and the structure of matter, fields of interactions and environments in them are at different stages of complication. Therefore, speaking about the observed Universe as “our Universe” from the author’s point of view, is incorrect. “Our Universe” is nothing other than a plurality of Universes which are observed by us in one or other state of complication. Thirdly, the earth’s noosphere is only the beginning of noogenesis. In future, a minimum of 3 billion years of continuous and nonlinear

The Theory of Evolution

139

complication are to be expected. Humanity will expect a lot of changes. For the scale of these changes, we can judge from the example of the complication of Inert Matter and Living Matter at the scale of the Solar System. Inert Matter had been complicated for 3 billion years from quarks to polymers, Living Matter from RNA molecules to mammals. The complication of Intelligent Matter of Earth began with neural ensembles of subconsciousness that separated out the family of the most progressive primates (hominid) from the animal world. For 5 million years neuroevolution, sociocultural evolution and the evolution of the technologies of the most ancient hominids have brought us to the mastering of the near cosmos. Taking into account that in 1 billion years the condition of Earth will be unsuitable for biological life due to physical changes in the sun, a strategy of the evolution of Intelligent Matter becomes clearer: a) As much as possible, to obtain full liberation from factors of the biological environment; substituting them with more reliable and controlled artificial constructs; b) Achieving mastery of the near and far cosmos; the complication of the sociocultural environment and technologies to a level which provides the noosphere relief from the destructive influence of the cosmos.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afonkin, Sergey. Biokombinatorika or Block the Organizing Principle of Life. In Biology. 35 (707) 16-19.9.2003. http://bio.1september.ru/article.php?ID=200303501 Akchurin, Igor. The Unity of Natural-Scientific Knowledge. Moscow: Nauka, 1974. Akhundov, Murad. Conceptions of Space and Time: Sources, Evolution, Directions. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. —. Space and Time in Physical Knowledge. Moscow: Musl, 1982 a. Anokhin, Pyotr. Collected Works: Philosophic Aspects of the Theory of Functional Systems. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. Anokhin, Konstantin and Tatyana Chernigovskaya. Mirror for the Brain. V Mire Nauki. 5, 2008: 68-73. Alekseenko, Vladimir. Environmental Geochemistry. Moscow: Logos, 2000. Baev, Konstantine. Copernicus. Moscow: Zhurnalnogazetnoe Obedinenie, 1935. Baer, Karl. Autobiography. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., 1950. Balandin, Rudolf. Vernadsky: Life, Thinking, Immortality. Moscow: Znanie, 1988. Bazaluk, Oleg. Intelligent Substance. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 2000. —. The Essence of Human Life. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 2002. —.Origin of Mankind: a New Cosmological Concept. Dnepropetrovsk: Porogi, 2003. —.Time on Basis of the New Cosmological Concept. Dnepropetrovsk: Porogi, 2003 a. —.The Universe: Living and Intelligent Matter. The HistoricalPhilosophical and Natural-Science Analysis on Basis of the New Cosmological Concept. Dnepropetrovsk: Porogi, 2005. —. Philosophy of Life: From Voluntarism to Existentialism: Comparative Analysis. Vinnitsa: O. Vlasyuk, 2006. —. The Existential-Philosophical Analysis of a Phenomenon of Life in the West European Philosophy at the End of 19th— the First Half of 20th. Dnepropetrovsk: Gonchar Dnepropetrovsk National University, 2007. http://www.bazaluk.com/scientific-library/book/283.html

142

Bibliography

—. Space Travels — Traveling Mentality. Kiev: KNT, 2012. Bazaluk, Oleg and Iliana Vladlenova. Philosophical Problems of Cosmology. Kharkov: NTU Kharkov Polytechnic Institute, 2013. Bekhtereva, Natalya, Yuri Gogolitsyn, Yuri Kropotov, and Sergey Medvedev. Neurophysiological Mechanisms of Thinking. Leningrad: Nauka, 1985. Bekhtereva, Natalya. The Magic of the Brain and the Labyrinths of Life. Moscow: AST, 2008. Berg, Lev. Works on the Theory of Evolution (1922-1930). Leningrad: Nauka, 1977. Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. Matter and Memory. Minsk: Harvest, 1999. Bernal, John. Science in History. Moscow: Publishing House of Foreign Literature, 1956. —. The Origin of Life. Moscow: Mir, 1969. Beskova, Irina, Irina Gerasimova, and Igor Merkulov. The Phenomenon of Consciousness. Moscow: Progress Tradition, 2010. Bloom, Floyd, Arlyne Lazerson, and Laura Hofstadter. Brain, Mind and Behavior. Moscow: Mir, 1988. Borisnev, Sergey. Sociology of Communication. Moscow: UNITY-DANA 2003. Bourdieu, Pierre. Forms of capital. In “Economicheskay Sociology” Vol. 6, May 3, 2005: 60-74. Braudel, Fernand. Grammar of Civilizations. Moscow: Ves Mir, 2008. Butovskaya, Marina. Body Language: Nature and Nurture. Evolutionary and Cross-cultural Foundations of Human Nonverbal Communication. Moscow: Nauchnyi Mir, 2004. Butuk, Alexander. Economic Theory. Kyiv: Vikar, 2000. Byrne, Peter. The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Calow, Peter. Principles of Evolution. Moscow, Mir, 1986. Calvin, Melvin. Chemical Evolution: Molecular Evolution Towards the Origin of Living Systems on the Earth and Elsewhere. Moscow: Mir, 1971. Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Kiev: Sofia, 2003. Chernin, Arthur. A Space Vacuum. In Advances of Physical Sciences, Vol. 171. November 11, 2001: 1153-1175. Chizhevsky, Alexander. The Terrestrial Echo of Solar Storms. Moscow: Musl, 1976.

The Theory of Evolution

143

—. Space Pulse of Life: The Earth In The Embrace of The Sun. Moscow: Musl, 1995. Chomsky, Noam. Language and Thought. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1972. Danilova, Nina and Alevtina Krylov. Physiology of Higher Nervous Activity. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1989. Danilova, Nina. Psychophysiology. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2000. Darwin, Charles. Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Moscow: Prosvesheny, 1986. Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. —. The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989a. —. The Blind Watchmaker. Moscow: Mir, 1993. Dehaene, Stanislas. The Number Sense. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Dmitriev, Igor. The Temptation of Saint Copernicus: The Unscientific Structure of Scientific Revolution. St. Petersburg: University Press, 2006. Drobyshevskiy, Stanislav. The Evolution of the Human Brain: Analysis of Endocraniometric Traits of Hominids. Moscow: LKI Publishing, 2007. Drobzhev, Michael. Vernadsky and Modern Age. Tambov: University Press, 2010. Eigen, Manfred and Peter Schuster. The Hypercycle. A Principle of Natural Self- Organization. Moscow: Mir, 1982. Eskov, Cyril. Amazing Paleontology: History of the Earth and its Lifeforms. Moscow: ENAS, 2008. Evolution. Moscow: Mir, 1981. Evolution. Thinking. Consciousness. (Cognitive Approach and Epistemology). Edited by Igor Merkulov. Moscow: Kanon +, 2004. Fedorov, Nikolai. Collected Works. Moscow: Musl, 1982. Filipchenko, Yuri. Evolutionary Idea in Biology. Historical Survey of the Evolutionary Theory of the 19th Century. Moscow: Science, 1977. Folsom, Claire. EcoSphere Closed Aquatic Ecosystem, Small Pod. Moscow: Mir, 1982. Fox, Ronald. Energy and the Evolution of Life. Moscow: Mir, 1992. Fox, Sidney and Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life. With a foreword by A. Oparin. Moscow: Mir, 1975. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Moscow: Ermak, 2004. —. The Great Disruption. Moscow: Ermak, 2004a.

144

Bibliography

—. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Moscow: LUX, 2004b. From the Epistolary Heritage Karl Ernst von Baer in the Archives of Europe. Leningrad: Nauka, 1978. Galimov, Erik. Phenomenon of Life: Between Equilibrium and NonLinearity. Origin and Principles of Evolution. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2001. Genome evolution. Edited by G.A. Dover and R. FIavell. Moscow: Mir, 1986. Gindilis, Lev. S.E.T.I.: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Moscow: Publishing House of the Physical and Mathematical Literature, 2004. Global Future 2045: Anthropological Crisis, Converging Technologies, the Transhuman Projects: Materials of the all-Russian conference. Edited by D. I. Dubrovskaia and S. M. Klimova. Moscow: Kanon+, 2014. Goldberg, Elkhonon. The Executive Brain: Based on the conversation in the program “Obvious – Unbelievable.” V Mire Nauki. January, 2004: 82-87. Golubovsky, Michael. Century Genetics: Evolution of ideas and concepts. St. Petersburg: Borey ART, 2000. Gorbachev, Vladimir. Concepts of Modern Science. Moscow: Publishing MGUP, 2000. Great Encyclopedic Dictionary.St. Petersburg: Norint, 1999. Grinin, Leonid. The Big History of the Evolution of World: Space Evolution. Volgograd: Teacher, 2013. Grodnitsky, Dmitry. Two Theories of Biological Evolution. Saratov: Nauchnaya kniga, 2002. Grof, Stanislav, Ervin Laszlo, and Peter Russell. The Consciousness Revolution: a Transatlantic Dialogue. Moscow: AST Publishing, 2004. Gryaznov, Alexander. Analytic Philosophy. Moscow: Higher School, 2006. —. Language and Activities: Critical Analysis Vitgenshteynianstva. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2009. Gusev, Michael and Lyudmila Mineeva. Microbiology. Moscow: University Press, 1978. Gusev, Michael and Lyudmila Mineeva. Microbiology. Moscow: Academy, 2003. Haytun, Sergey. The Phenomenon of Man on the Background of Universal Evolution. Moscow: KomKniga, 2005. —. Socium Against the Man: the Laws of Social Evolution. Moscow:

The Theory of Evolution

145

KomKniga, 2006. —. ɋosmological Picture of the World Resulting from Hypothesis of Fractal Universe. In Philosophy and Cosmology. Vol.13. Kyiv: ISFC, 2014: 119-150. Hazen, Alexander. Law Hierarchical Synthesis Action-EntropyInformation Categories and Philosophy. In Philosophy and Cosmology 2008. Vol.7. Poltava: Poltava Writer, 2008: 53-66. Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations. Moscow: Publishing AST, 2003. —. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 2003a. Huxley, Julian. The Wonderful World of Evolution. Moscow, Mir, 1971. Hyman, Steven. Diagnosis of Diseases. V Mire Nauku, December, 2003: 70-77. Iacoboni, Marco. Mirroring People: The Science of Empathy and How We Connect with Others. Moscow: United Press, 2011. Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl. Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2011. Kaku, Michio. Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. Moscow: Sofia, 2008. Kandel, Eduard. On the Material Substratum of Consciousness Disorders in the Light of Neurosurgical Experience. In Unconscious: Nature, Functions, Methods of Research. Vol. 2: Sleep. Clinic. Creation. Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1978. Kaznacheev, Vlail. Vernadsky’s Theory of the Biosphere and the Noosphere. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1989. —. Conception of Global Evolutionism in the Scientific Picture of the World. In: On Modern Status of an Idea of Global Evolutionism. Moscow: IFRAN, 1986. Kazyutinsky, Vadim. Universe in the Scientific Picture of the World and Social-Practical Activity of Mankind, In: Philosophy, Natural Science, Social developments. Moscow: IFRAN, 1989. Kholodny, Nikolai. Collected Works. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1970. Kondratyuk, Yuri.Conquest of Interplanetary Space. Moscow: Oborongiz, 1947. —.Collected Works. Dnipropetrovsk: Dniproknyha, 1997. Kordjum, Vitaliy. Evolution and Biosphere. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1982. Kosslyn, Stephen. Image and Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. Kostecki, Eduard. How did Life. The Theory of the Emergence of Protocells and Their Structural Components. Part 1. In Bulletin of

146

Bibliography

Pacific State Economic University. Vladivostok: SPU 2008a: 79-101. —. How did Life. The Theory of the Emergence of Protocells and Their Structural Components. Part 2. In Bulletin of Pacific State Economic University. Vladivostok: SPU 2008b: 86-103. Krasilov, Valentin. Evolution and Biostratigraphy. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. Krichevsky, Sergey. Aerospace Activity: Philosophical and Methodological Analysis: the Doctoral Dissertation. Moscow: The Russian Academy of Public Service under the President of the Russian Federation, 2008. —. Aerospace Activity: Interdisciplinary Analysis. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2012. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moscow: Progress, 1977. Lapo, Andrey. Traces of Bygone Biospheres. Moscow: Znanie, 1979. Leary, Timothy.Future History. Kyiv: Janus, 2000. Lem, Stanislaw. Sum of Technology. Moscow: Publishing house AST, 2002. Leonov, Ivan. “Worlds” Macro-Story: Ideas, Patterns, Gestalt. St. Petersburg: Asterion, 2013. Leskov, Leonid. Space the Future of Humanity. Moscow: Ecology of the Unknown, 1996. —. Nonlinear Universe: a New Home for Mankind. Moscow: Economy, 2003. —. The Unknown Universe. Moscow: LKI Publishing, 2008. Levchenko, Vladimir. The Evolution of the Biosphere Before, and After the Appearance of Man. St. Petersburg: Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry, 2003. —. Biosphere: the Stages of Life. Evolution of the Parts and the Whole. St. Petersburg: Svoe Izdatelstvo, 2012. Lima-de-Faria, Antonio. Evolution without Selection Form and Function by Autoevolution. Moscow: Mir, 1991. Lorenz, Konrad. Behind the Mirror. Moscow: Republic, 1998. Luhmann, Niklas. Time and Systemic Rationality. Kyiv: Center Uchebnoy Iiterature, 2011. Lyubishchev, Alexander. Problems of Form, Systematics and Evolution of Organisms. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. http://www.twirpx.com/file/1202118/ Maneev, Alexey. Continuity in the Development of the Categories of Space, Time and Movement. Minsk: Nauka and Technology, 1971. Markov, Alexander and Andrey Kulikov. Origin of Eukaryotes as a Result of Integration Processes in Microbial Community. The report of the Institute of Developmental Biology, January 29, 2009.

The Theory of Evolution

147

http://evolbiol.ru/dok_ibr2009.htm Markov, Alexander. Birth of Complexity. Evolutionary Biology Today: Unexpected Discoveries and New Questions. Moscow: Astrel, 2010. —.The Evolution of Man. Volume 1: Monkeys, Bones, and Genes. Moscow: Astrel, 2011. —.The Evolution of Man. Volume 2: Monkeys, Neurons, and Soul. Moscow: Astrel, 2011 a. Markov, Alexander and Elena Naimark. Evolution: Classical Ideas in the Light of New Discoveries. Moscow: CORPUS, 2014. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Collected Works. Volume 20. Moscow, 1961. Meyen, Sergey. Fundamentals of Paleobotany. Reference Manual. Moscow: Nedra, 1987. —. The Compassion Principle: Reflections on Ethics and Scientific Cognition. Moscow: GEOS, 2006. Moiseev, Nikita. Man and the Noosphere. Moscow: Mol. Guard, 1990. —. To be or not to be ... humanity. Moscow: Ulyanovsk Printing House, 1999. Morgun, Vasily. “Golden” Civilization Waves and Paleoclimatic Oscillations Petterson-Dansgora-Oeschger. Philosophy & Cosmology. Vol.12. Kiev: ISFC, 2014: 26-64. —. “Golden” Civilization Waves and Paleoclimatic Oscillations PettersonDansgora-Oeschger (Part 2). Philosophy & Cosmology. Vol.13. Kiev: ISFC, 2014a: 7-69. Mostepanenko, Alexander. The Problem of Existence in Physics and Cosmology: the Philosophical and Methodological Aspects. Leningrad: University Press, 1987. Naisbitt, John. High Tech High Touch: Technology and Our Search for Meaning. Moscow: AST, 2005. Naydysh, Vyacheslav. Modern Natural Sciences Concepts. Moscow: INFRA-M, 2004. Nazaretyan, Akop. Nonlinear Future. Metahistorical, Synergies, Cultural and Psychological Background of Global Forecasting. Moscow: Publishing House of MBA, 2013. Nazarov, Vadim. Evolution is not a Darwinian: Change the Evolutionary Model. Moscow: LKI Publishing, 2007. Newcomb, Theodore. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol. Rew., 1953, Vol. 60: 293–304. Nicholls, John, Robert Martin, Bruce Wallace, and Paul Fuchs. From Neuron to Brain. Moscow: LKI, 2008.

148

Bibliography

Odum, Howard and Eugene Odum. Energy Basis for Man and Nature. Moscow: Progress, 1978. Oparin, Alexander. Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. —. Matter ĺ Life ĺ Intelligence. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. Penrose, Roger. Structure of Space-Time. Moscow: Mir, 1972. —. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2003. —. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Moscow-Izhevsk: Institute of Computer Science, 2005. Philosophy of Biology. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Memory Regina Semyonovna Karpinskaya. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, 1996. Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2004. Popov, Igor. Orthogenesis Versus Darwinism: The Russian Case. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, 2005. Popper, Karl. Evolutionary Epistemology. In Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future.Edited by J. W. Pollard. John Wiley &. Sons. Chichester and New York, 1984, ch. 10: 239-255. —. Knowledge and Psychophysical Problem: In defense cooperation. Moscow: LKI Publishing, 2008. Porshnev, Boris. About the Beginning of the Human History. Problems of Paleopsychology. Moscow: Musl, 1974. Problem of Search for Life in the Universe. Proc. Symp., held in Tallinn,December 7-11, 1981. Moscow: Nauka, 1986. Ramachandran, Vilayanur. The Emerging Mind: Mysteries of our Consciousness. Moscow: Olympus – Business, 2006. —. The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human.Moscow: Career Press, 2012. Russian Cosmism: Anthology of Philosophical Thought. Moscow: Pedagogy Press, 1993. Sagan, Carl. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. Moscow: Knowledge, 1986. —. Cosmos: The Evolution of the Universe, Life and Civilization. St. Petersburg: Amphora, 2005. Schmalhausen, Ivan. The Problem of Death and Immortality. Moscow: State Publishing House, 1926. —. Factors of Evolution: The Theory of Stabilizing Selection. Moscow: Publishing House of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1946. —. Organism as a Whole in Individual and Historical Development. Selected Works. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. —. Ways and Regularities of Evolution Process. Selected Works. Moscow:

The Theory of Evolution

149

Nauka, 1983a. Schrödinger, Erwin. What is Life From the Viewpoint of Physics? Lectures delivered at Trinity College in Dublin in February, 1943. Moscow: State Publishing House of Foreign Literature, 1947. —. New Ways of Physics: Articles and Speeches. Moscow: Nauka, 1971. —. Spatial and Temporal Structure of the Universe. Moscow: Nauka. 1986. —. Mind and Matter. Izhevsk: Regular and chaotic dynamics, 2006. Semenova, Svetlana. Philosopher of the Next Century: Nikolai Fyodorov. Moscow: Pashkov Dom, 2004. —. Pilgrim in the Future. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. St. Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, 2009. —. Paths of Heartfelt Thoughts: Sketches, Fragments, Excerpts from the Diary. Moscow: PoRog, 2012. Severtsov, Alexey. Main directions of Evolutionary Process. Morphobiological Theory of Evolution. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow University, 1967. Severtsov, Alexey. The Theory of Evolution. Moscow: VLADOS, 2005. Shklovsky, Iosif. Stars: Their Birth, Life, and Death. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. —. Problems of Modern Astrophysics. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. —. The Universe, Life and Mind. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. Shubin, Neil. The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People. Moscow: AST, 2013. Smirnov, Dmitry. Semiosofiya Noosphere of Universum: Noosphere and the Global Semiosphere Discourse. Ivanovo: Ivanovo State University Press, 2008. Smotritskii, Eugene. Kant and Laplace: Comparative Analysis of Cosmological Concepts. (Ɍo the 275th anniversary of Immanuel Kant and the 250th anniversary of the birth of P. S. Laplasa). In: “Fɿlosofɿya. Culture. Zhittya,” 4. Dnepropetrovsk, 1999. Sorokin, Pitirim. Man. Civilization. Society. Moscow: Politizdat, 1992. Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Volume I: Form and Actuality. Minsk: Poppuri, 1998. —. The Decline of the West. Volume II: Perspectives of World-History. Minsk: Poppuri, 1999. Steele, Edvard, Robyn Lindley, and Robert Blanden. Lamarck’s Signature : How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin’s Natural Selection Paradigm. Moscow: Mir, 2002. Stepin, Vyacheslav and Lydia Kuznetsova. Scientific Picture of the World in the Culture of the Technogenic Civilization. Moscow: IFRAN, 1994.

150

Bibliography

Subetto, Alexander. Noosferizm. Vol. 1. Introduction to Noosferizm. Kostroma: University Press, 2006. Supotnitsky, Michael. Evolutionary pathology. To a question about the place of HIV infection and HIV / AIDS pandemic, among other infectious diseases, epidemic and pandemic processes. Moscow: University Book, 2009. Tchaikovsky, Yuri. Science of Life Development. The Experience of the Theory of Evolution. Moscow: KMK, 2006. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. Le phɣnomɢne humain. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955. Tsiolkovsky, Konstantin. Outside the Earth: a Collection of Popular Science and Science Fiction Works. Moscow: Luch, 2008. Ugolev, Alexander.The Theory of Adequate Food and Nutritional Science. Leningrad: Nauka, 1991. Ursul, Arkady. Way Into the Noosphere. The Concept of Survival and Sustainable Development of Civilization. Moscow, 1993. —. Cosmoglobalistiɫs: the Relationship of Global and Cosmic Processes. In Philosophy and Cosmology. Vol. 11. Kyiv: ISPC, 2013: 7-52. Ursul, Arkady and Tetiana Ursul. Cosmoglobalistics: Interrelation of Global and Cosmic Processes. In Philosophy and Cosmology. Vol. 13. Kyiv: ISPC, 2014: 90-118. Vernadsky, Vladimir. Philosophical Thoughts of a Naturalist: In 2 book. Pr. 1: Space and Time in the Animate and Inanimate Nature. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. —. Philosophical Thoughts of a Naturalist: In 2 book. Pr. 2: Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. —. Living Substance. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. —. Chemical Structure of the Earth’s Biosphere and its Surroundings. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. —. Biosphere and Noosphere. Moscow: Rolf, 2002. Veselov, Elpidifor. Alexey Severtsov. Moscow: Prosveshenie, 1975. Vitol, Eduard. Evolution: Aspects of Modern Evolutionism. In “The Structure of Modern Evolutionism”. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2012: 1547. —. The Matrix Planetary Systems: Visualization of the Earth’s Evolution. Moscow: Capital Strany, 2012a. Vizgin, Viktor. The Idea of a Plurality of Worlds: Essays on the History. Moscow: Publishing LCI, 2007. Voitkevich, George. Origin and Development ɨf Life ɨn Earth. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. —. The birth of the Earth. Rostov na Donu: Phoenix, 1996.

The Theory of Evolution

151

Voitkevich, George and Vladimir Vronsky. Fundamentals of the Biosphere. Rostov na Donu: Phoenix, 1996. Vorontsov, Nicholas. The Development of Evolutionary Ideas in Biology. Moscow: Progress Tradition, 1999. Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2004. —. Cosmology. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2013. Wikipedia. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Yablokov, Alexey and Abdulmalik Yusufov. Evolutionary Theory. Moscow: Higher School, 1981. Yablokov, Alexey. Population Biology. Moscow: Higher School, 1987. Yulina, Nina. Puzzles of consciousness problem: the Concept of Daniel Dennett. Moscow: Kanon +, 2004. ZawadzkiKirill and Eduard Kolchinsky. Evolution of Evolution. The Historical and Critical Essays of the Problem. Leningrad: Nauka, 1977. Zusmanovsky, Alexander. BioInformation and Evolution: the Right and Lamarck and Darwin. Ulyanovsk: Printing House, 2003.