Over the past ten years there has been growing interest in the problem “mind uploading” and published numerous scientific articles and books.1 A whole group of issues of different nature and degree of community are discussed and analyzed, from equipment and technology to methodology and philosophy. A more complete picture of this hypothetical process is gradually being developed. I have been closely following the development of the mind uploading idea and the whole flow of related research in this area from the very beginning. And I am convinced that there is a need for optimization and much larger philosophical and methodological developments than the existing ones.2 The purpose of this article is to outline, in a large stroke, a slightly different overall picture of the mind-uploading process and to outline some important directions for further research and concretization.
From the outset, I would point out that the process of “mind uploading” must be viewed in close connection with the idea of immortality in man, and not just immortality, but personal immortality. Some researchers think that being directly involved with the idea of personal immortality narrows the horizon and moves away from scientific thinking, but I think the opposite is true. The idea of a cybernetic variant of personal immortality was vigorously and categorically put forward by the Russia 2045 public movement a few years ago3, but this idea has been formulated and discussed since the mid-twentieth century and has a long history. The seeds were most likely planted in an early publication4 by the physicist John Bernal in which he argues on the hypothesis that the numerous constrictions, so typical of the human organism, could be bypassed through artificial organ prostheses – the anticipated result of the constructive and technological advance of humanity. The futurologist Arthur Clarke in his almost forgotten, and yet abundant with prognoses book, “Profiles of the Future”5, in the chapter “The obsolescence of man” far back in the 60-s, brings up for discussion the issue of personal immortality and the perfection of the individual by means of merging between humans and machines – a merging of such a magnitude, that all human components are to drop, aside from the soul, the mind, the consciousness, and the personality. Those are to be preserved on an artificial carrier – much more perfected than the organic human body. At that time such visions were looked upon as a demonstration of “wild scientism” and were met with a strong negative reaction6 backed up mostly by political and ideological arguments, rather than by analysis, science and sensibility. As it was often the case, the supporters of such ideas were accused of incompetence, lack of correctness, and speculations with avant-garde scientific achievements.
In this context one can easily recognize the great value of the position taken by Academician V. Glushkov who, at that time, bravely announced before the whole public audience:
“I think that man will be capable of giving much more to the machine. At some point at the very end of passing information to the computer, humans will seem to pass on to the machine their own consciousness and just then they will suddenly begin to feel that they are what they are, and yet, they are simultaneously the machine, too. It would be unwise to rule out such a possibility, if the core of the consciousness is not inseparably connected to certain brain cells, but is has the capacity and is in a condition to migrate… That, that is the final transit – namely the transit not only of intellectual power to the computer, but the transition of human consciousness and self-awareness, too. In all factuality, this is immortality completed to the fullest…”7
As a comment, a continuation and concretization to Mr. Glushkov’s visions, our first publications8 and experiments9 come out in the attempt to pull out the cyber version of personal immortality from the level of a journalistic sensation and comments and to bring it up to the level of scientific testing and research. One of our findings from that time substantially strengthened our confidence, both for the availability of a principled opportunity for the implementation of mind uploading and for the technical and technological realization. The essence, expressed in two sentences, is rooted in the properties of neurological memory – associativeness and distribution. These neural network memory properties make it possible to apply and work with the holographic model. The model enables memory engrams to be considered as neurocholograms. What would happen if we appropriately connected two brains, conventionally called: “donor” and “receiver” and begin crawling the memory of the “donor” associatively. After a sufficiently long process of memory activation, an array of engrams will be formed that will be common to both brains. As it happens in the two hemispheres of the brain associated with corpus calosum. We do not know all the details of the processes in the brain that carry the mental and the conscious. Yes! But we know that these processes span the two hemispheres and respectively the two brains in our thought experiment. What if the connection between the two brains was broken !? What happens if you break a hologram in half !? Two identical copies! Doubling memory, doubling mental and consciousness, which is equivalent to transferring from one brain to another. Undoubtedly, this idea is a specific vision for the process mind uploading.
Probably some time distance was needed, a few decades had to pass, so as the actual collosal power of technologies to be regognized, the true value of our world to be seen and understood – the human as a personality, as consciousness and self-awareness, the needed correlations to be created and to be made perfectly comprehensible that the cyber – personal immortality vector has no other alternative in the development of mankind. This is not just the next idea, not a whim. This is the highway to development of science, technologies, and mankind, surpassing its embryo stage and taking full responsibility for its own existence and advance set in direction to the Universe.
The merits of the public movement “Russia 2045” cannot be denied, especially in relation to putting these issues firmly, clearly and responsibly before Russia and all humanity.10 With the assignment having been set, there comes the time for serious, deep analysis, streaming of ideas, theories and research, the time for open discussions, competition and collaboration between countries, working groups and individuals, between their approaches, methodologies, theories and technologies. However, today, more than ever, we are in need of one unified common theory. The idea of cyber immortality and the development of mankind along this pivotal new road has to be transformed into a unified theory which will allow for bringing forward concrete specified issues which are to be researched by means and methods which science provides for. The suggested and developed technologies and theories have to allow for evaluation according to objective criteria; for a synthesis of knowledge to be achieved, for an optimum guidance to be performed on the whole process of transition from “Homo sapiens” to “Homo immortalis”, or “Homo aeternitatis”, if you will. Nothing serves better than a good theory, especially given the inevitability of the circumstances – we, as individuals and as a society, are moving in that specific direction, we are entering a territory full of surprises.
In the initial formulations of the idea of mind uploading made by A. Clark, V. Glushkov and others. it is not yet specified how this will happen. Much later, the procedures were formulated:Uploading by the Microtome Procedure; Uploading by the Nanoreplacement Procedure;Uploading by the Moravec Procedure;Nondestructive Uploading Procedures.11As, of course, many procedures are open.Here, perhaps here is the place to recall one more procedure:
Some three or four decades ago the scientific promoter V. Pekelis wrote in the “Literary Russia”:
Can human life be significantly prolonged?…
In a far perspective, at the end of the long road cybernetics has just stepped on, we can imagine how the artificial brain connects to the natural healthy brain. For a certain period of time they work together, side by side, and the artificial brain adopts all habits and tastes of its ‘host’. Then, when the old natural brain switches off, the human continues to exist with the artificial one , after having inherited memories, knowledge, tasted and personal traits. An artificial brain implanted into a body of prostheses! This means that the human as a human dies, yes. The body dies, the brain dies!? Yes, but then again a human keeps on living as an intellect, having transferred their being into the artificial brain. Hence, theoretically, immortality is possible.”12
I call this procedure – Artificial Commissure! The name was chosen bearing in mind the analogy with the natural commissure between the two hemispheres of the brain – corpus calosum, ensuring their joint work, unity and wholeness. The Artificial Commissure should ensure the joint work of the „brain – donor“ and the „brain – recipient“, their unity and integrity.
The Artificial Commissure procedure can be illustrated by several schemes:
The numbers mean:
1. The human body as a whole;
2. Sensory organs and nervous system;
3. Central nervous system and brain;
4. Memory engram space (memory space);
5. Psyche, consciousness, self-awareness.
Figure 2 shows a human-individual (donor) and an artificial organism (receiver), with the artificial organism (receiver) being a more perfect functional analogue of the human biological organism and the memory space is empty „tabula rasa“.
Figure 3 shows an artificial commissure that connects the two brains and ensures their functioning as a whole. It also means a common memory space in which the psyche, consciousness and self-consciousness exist and function.
After sufficiently long functioning in a coupled state to allow associative crawling of the entire space of the memory of the donor organism, it may first begin partially and then completely shut down. When can this happen !? Once the transferring entity begins successfully managing the senses and other organs of the host organism.
After the removal of the donor organism, the psyche, consciousness and self-consciousness of the person do not disappear, but remain to exist and develop in the new artificial organism. In this case, the person inherits memory, abilities and all individual characteristics, but there are richer opportunities for development than before.
There is no limit to this process of relocation of the psychic components (memory, psyche, consciousness and self-consciousness) to be performed an unlimited number of times. And so to make unlimited existence and development of personality in a series of bodies of increasing perfection.
This is real personal immortality.
Apparently, this vision of personal immortality depicts a process of growing unfolding spiral where the human personality is preserved and develops for eternity and with no constrictions whatsoever in a sequence of host organisms with continuity and increasing perfection. The first organism of this sequence is the biological one, the one we get from nature, but the next ones are artificial organisms – a product of the creative activity of society. Yet, the fact of highest significance is that after consequent removal of the carriers the personality with its memories, self-awareness and consciousness is preserved and further developed into the new carrier with new potential abilities. As per the primary intention, this preservation and development will be performed through unlimited number of cycles, with limit-free expansion, shaping into hyper preservation.
The idea of personal immortality in its cyber version is definitely related to the term “preservation”. If we really insist on the rational character of the idea, and since the shortcut to its formulating in the scientific terms is the category “preservation”, here the necessity for several questions to be answered emerges clearly and precisely:
* What is preserved?
* What are the mechanisms of preservation?
* What are the limits of this preservation?
* Can this so-called preservation be classified? (Are there actual analogues in reality?)
However, here is the place to be stressed out that the road to science is well laid out, that it’s not just a path – it’s a highway, that the whole contemporary science is nothing else, but searching for and finding the structure of preservation under the forms of laws of nature, social laws, and their explication and generalization. Yet, here is the time to also immediately point out that we are still too far from one unified theory for preservation, despite the fact that some remarkable attempts have been made in this direction. The most prominent attempt for developing a common preservation theory, and a general scientific concept to go with it, was offered in the middle of the twentieth century by L. von Bertalanffy – “General System Theory”13, as well as the consequent broad system research14. Unfortunately, this process of theoretical synthesis is not completed as yet. In the years to follow, new useful ideas have been added and they will probably lead to a leap in direction towards achieving a unified, and most importantly, working system theory. The essential connection between systematic and preservation was spotted in the early years of the research in this field, and it has been acknowledged today. Here are a few quotations in proof of the stated above:
“The whole is created by the integrating elements through a complicated process of internal and external interaction… Each element in its capacity of a future functional unit in a future structure, and is inexhaustible as to its possibilities. These possibilities come to realization through statistic means, through their multiple sorting out. For this purpose, nature has at hand limitless time. Amongst the truly inexhaustible systems, to utter fulfillment and realization reach those that form stable systems. There exists, so to say, a principle of natural selection among the emerging systems. The most endurable “survive”. From this basic point, it is safe to say, that in order for the wholeness of the emerging systems to be understood, there comes the inevitability of research on the laws of their durability.”15
“Change is an attributive state of matter, a natural background for all occurrences. Only those structures, which possess inner durability, are in a dynamic equilibrium with the surroundings, and that is the only way they can ‘survive’, preserve themselves in the stream of changes, in the constant struggle with destructive forces.16
“A system is a random type of elements between which there are stable connections. The term ‘durability’ brings a really important notional weight to the process of defining a system. A system lacking endurance and stability is not capable of continuity of existence. Durability and stability are the most common qualities of any system and they define mostly of its other features.“17
Sometimes the much too obvious things are the most difficult to see, and that is how they remain neglected and do not receive the needed attention. However, for us this particular aspect (the significant connection between systemizing and preservation) was of priority importance and led us to a common system theory which can most surely be called a unified preservation theory because of the particular role of the term ‘system’ in its development. At the chosen level of the research, it is crucial to stress upon the fact that precisely this common aspect, which is not neglected in the classical system research works, and yet it had to be emphasized on and researched18 by us, happened to be the most vital in bringing forward of the idea of personal immortality.
A new, original concept on the system theories had to be developed19 , and it had to correspond fully to the researched idea. The general theory on the functional systems20 by P. K. Anohin and his definition for a “system” served as a base for this work:
“A system could be called such a complex of selected components between which the cooperation and the interrelation are becoming mutual COoperation between the components for the obtaining of focused beneficial result ”21 (P.K.Anochin)
The definition was chosen from several dozen others. It is preferred to others because P.K. Anokhin brings it as a summary of his research on higher nervous activity and the psyche in his quest to solve the mind-body problem. On the other hand, it has been criticized as insufficiently general, but we can easily realize that the mutual COoperation between the components, after all, directly or indirectly, leads to a universal result – self-preservation. In the predominant number of research developments, misled by the system of generalization, most of the functions (results) are presented as a spectrum whose separate lines are equally important. But the functions (results) in nature can be arranged with greater success and more precisely in the form of a “tree” with a one common root, and that is: self preservation22. This can be easily explained by the existing of such a common regularity like the second law of thermodynamics, according to which each totality of elements limited by the environment and performing a certain uneven distribution of matter and energy, during each energetic transformation seems to go through a certain amount of “pressure” resulting in equalizing the heterogeneity. This, in the end, leads to dissembling of the totality, in case it meets no counteraction. However, this is a task set by the character of our world, which task the interacting totalities of elements (systems) can or cannot solve, with more or less success in the following manner: survival is not given for granted – it is a fundamental problem for the systems of a random nature. It is quite in order to speak of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” beyond the boundaries of biology – for the physical and chemical systems because the universal meaning of natural selection has been understood and perceived.23 With regards to this statement, G. Klaus wrote:
“… there exists a universal war between the systems. In this war the unstable ones are being destroyed, the strongest survive and they are the ones which determine what our world looks like.” 24
The very nature of self preservation as a result is what it has to be – it has to take it above all other results, since the unstable and not endurable systems are destroyed, and only the stable ones remain (the self-preserving ones). Quite naturally, only the super stable, the leaders in self preservation are to play the prime role in defining the shape and appearance of the world and the Universe. It is also natural for the generalized naturally selected system to create in time super powerful self preserving systems which we can rather safely to call immortal.
Of extreme importance to understanding the cyber variation of personal immortality is the systematic (referring to the general point of view on the systems) idea of the human individual. This understanding provides the discussed all along detailed and precise in a theoretic form division of a human: the human as a body and the human as a personality and psyche.25
The beginning of the personality is a long, complex and multi-phase process of socialization which is most intensive during the second to the third year after the birth. The formation of the person as a character requires a high level of development of the nervous and psychic system. “Each personality is a temporary formation with materials borrowed by the surroundings, while consciousness is an untraceable development of extracerebrial information. The “individual” half represents regrouping of the elements from the environment,“26 wrote H. Delgado in the now brushed-off from the dust book “Physical control of the mind”. For the sake of determining this new line of the human development, B. Ananiev uses the term “life path”27 : this implies the history of formation and development of the individual as a personality in a certain social environment.
The system approach to this division with humans (the human as a body, and the human as personality) goes further into revealing the reason, the mechanism, as well as the immediate carrier.
Here we come to a key point in the development of these ideas. It has a key role because it comprises of a decision provoking movement in several directions at the same time. Firstly, this is an idea which to a great extend rationalizes and specifies the primary vision on “soul” and “body”, offering a purely materialistic solution of the psycho-physiological and psycho-physical paradox (respectively issue), leaning on the system ideas. Secondly, at the same time it allows for the idea of cyber immortality to be brought into a cyber version, achieving that in a timely manner, strictly and most certainly within the boundaries of science. Lastly, it allows for broadening of the system ideas coming straight from the source ( L. von Bertalanffi, P.K. Anohin and others), based on universality of a certain form of systemization to a unified theory on the systems, but already in a complete and fully logical wholeness and clarity. One has to emphasize on the fact that the heuristics for such a development happened to be the idea for personal immortality.
The quoted on numerous occasions position, expressed by N. Wiener from the time when cybernetics was settling in, has its rightful place here:
“Information is information. It is neither matter, nor energy. Any materialism, which does not acknowledge this, cannot be viable right now.”28
From the time this position was expressed till now many deep and thorough research endeavors have been made, thousands of books have been written, which more or less give a successful answer to the question: “What is information?” But in the huge pile of ideas and findings, some remained misunderstood and underrated. One of these lines of work on a philosophical-methodological level were the ideas presented in the research performed by V. I. Kremianski which proved to be absolutely precious and helpful in our specific research, but remained beyond the circle of attention to the better part of scientists and researchers.
Plainly put, in detail V.I. Kremianski tried to apply a system approach to information as a phenomenon and offered a new term – systems of information (infs) at a time when any introduction of new terminology and wording was looked upon with a frown. His new idea proved to be a significant leap forward to synthesis between cybernetics and systemology. (That was the synthesis predicted and promoted by L. von Bertalaffi 29)
In the very prologue to his monograph30 “Methodological issues and a system approach to information” (Moscow, 1977, “Nauka” publishing house) which presents his profound exposure in its wholeness and his general concept, the author formulates his major idea:
“Information does not occur only in the form of simple in their nature purely additive multitudes of units, as per the classical theory; in real nature and in the society as a whole, information undergoes its own specific stages of development, along with a considerable level of evolutionary changes. In genotypes, in instincts, in habits, or in other forms of psychic characteristics with animals, in the scientific knowledge, in technical projects and programmes, plans and in general in all kinds of reflection, information does not only swarm and thicken round the centers for connection, management, research, but it also becomes more integrated. It is brought to its own levels of a specific organization and external organizational activity. Its genesis, history, and functioning gain relative independence.”31
By reviewing the ideas for the formation of specific objects from the integration of information in various particular cases (living systems, living systems with psyche, social systems, etc.) VI Kremyansky concludes:
“Looking closely at these schematically drawn tendencies in their totality, we can observe the movement, formation and to some degree the ‘construction’ of one new in its essence system object in them. This is the information which is used for management and gaining of its own specific organization and activity… They correspond to the term systems of information, acting in the capacity of organizers… Indeed, it is the development of the systems of information in the living nature and in the society which create the most meaningful foundations of continuity and “the development of development”, the most complete expression of “historicism” of the object, characterized by the complexity of organization.“32
In several publications of his, the author outlines the paths of research for the three major stages of systematization of information – genetic systems of information, zoo-psychic systems of information and social systems of information, which go by the common term infs.
The process of self-organization and betterment of the preservation function, as well as the accompanying selection and elimination of the less perfect systems has been going on for millions of years, but schematically it can be presented as a sequence of larger leaps from one stage to another –
V. I. Kremianski’s concept turns out to be most valuable precisely due to his understanding of these leaps, as each of these leaps in its essence presents a leap up in direction to the function of self-preservation, and yet, this leap has happened down to the emerging of a new kind of systematization, and to be more precise – of a new kind of a system of information.
The idea for observation of specific systems – systems of information (infs), is well backed-up with solid arguments in the exact science, but it would have remained not well clarified, unless V. I Kremianski had not put an extra effort into comparing the traditional systems with the systems of information. In brief, the systems of information could be characterized as follows:
Information as a hyper structure.
With reference to the publications by C. C. Smith33 , V.I. Kremianski draws the attention to certain specific characteristic traits of the structure which come to the surface as a result of the fact that not all levels of freedom of the elements are engaged in structural connections. Let us analyze in detail one typical example for the sake of clarification – the icy formations on the glass surface at low temperatures. Given the lower temperature and the dramatic fall in the intensity of movement of the water molecules, from the state of vapor, they go through a phase change – they turn into liquid, and yet a second phase change – crystallization (from water to a solid substance). During this process certain connections between the water molecules are formed. The main connections are on the axes, positioned at angles 60 degrees one against the other – the so- called needle-shaped mono crystals. However, since the crystallization takes place on a glass surface, which has its uneven parts, scratches, dirty stains, and so on, the formation of the needle-shaped crystals bears the impact of the given circumstances for each microscopic spot. The connections between the single molecules are the same. Moreover, in the period of formation of each monocrystal, the freedom of choice is intact at the point of formation of each new crystal „beam” (or crystal needle). To sum up, within the limits of the connections between the water molecules, the practically unlimited diversity of variations of the specific structure of the polycrystal mass is preserved, provided there is enough quantity of source material. That is how, the same laws of crystallization of water allow for unlimited diversity of external forms and shapes and polycrystal structure (icy feathers, snowflakes, and so on). Moreover and most importantly – these laws (related to the connection between the water molecules) cannot provide any explanation why exactly these, and no other, no different shapes are formed. C.C. Smith calls these external forms “superstructure”. Vedenov and Kremianski specify the term and introduce the new term “hyper structure”34 . They do bear in mind that “hyper” means more than excess, and even more than the necessary, their term corresponds well with the depicted occurrences in the example: more than just a structure, something external by origin, related not only to the connections between the elements, but also to much larger territories of interconnection (for example the glass surface). In essence, Kremianski’s contribution comes down to the following: he drew the attention to the fact that these modification in the structure, which occur not as a consequence of the given structure, but within it, and under the influence of the surroundings and the interaction within the metasystem, at a given point of the development can begin exercising massive influence upon the very fate of the system. There also comes to light the fact that there exists an element of historicism of great importance, and that the commonly adopted definition of structure tuns out insufficient to cover all these phenomena. Rather in the same way, the generally adopted laws of mechanics and physics are not sufficient when it comes to understanding the specific correlations, typical for the construction of different types of machines (engineer science). The chosen term, “hyper structure” (a combination between the Greek “hyper” and the Latin “structure”) serves to describe well the most important part – more than a structure, external by origin, and an expression of the impact of larger, broader and engulfing systems (metasystems), but coming into existence in no other way but down to imposed impacts of the external changes of the immediate own structures of the body which turns into the closest and most direct carrier of information of the given units – underdeveloped and primitive. The hyper structure becomes information when it starts excercising its impact upon the self preservation of the system as a whole and of its own self preservation in particular.
The true manifestation of the information structures
(a structure within a structure) or hyper structure which can be found also in non-living minerals (and other objects) begins when the true encoding and decoding come into play, while the resulting from this change of the immediate structures gains the shape of signs and sign systems. Using codes enables the transformation of a certain randomly taken object, which at given circumstances is capable of performing as a material carrier of information, into something more than “the object itself is”. The examples are many and too diverse – from ordinary polymers in the cell nucleus and the cytoplasm and the domains on the surface of the magnetic band, to the signs on the white sheets of paper. Characteristic of these sufficiently developed examples is that here we are not talking about fragmented and separated traces and contours, but rater about connected whole images, models, plans, and so on. We are talking about events which pre-determine how a melody will sound, how a complex mechanism will be formed, the new behavioral patterns and the life itself, as well as the survival of a given species, and even the life system of the planet. Their reflections (put in broad terms) are not simply streams of energy, matter and order; they are streams of systems of information in the very meaning of the word itself. The systems of information, which with regard to their material carrier turn out to be superstructures or hyper structures, have to be set apart and examined separately and in detail. The physical, chemical and other immediate structures come to existence as a result of a certain interaction between the elements in a given single system, while the information structures come to life and they shape out as a result of much more complicated processes oriented towards the metasystem and a hierarchy inclusion of the carrier system into it. The understanding of information as a hyperstructure is in full accordance with the classical interpretations35: “Information as reflected diversification” and “information as downloaded ambiguity”, but it also does give us more – it opens certain opportunities for a qualitative approach to the phenomenon of information, it allows to put forward the thesis of systems от information.
– The systems of information have to be seen and considered as triple in their essence and formations.
In fact, they exist in a “triple unity” with its own material carriers, as well as with their metasystem. In the meantime, they they develop in their capacity as a center for “memory” and organization as per their own, mostly matasystematic laws, white simultaneously they become more and more independent with regards to their carriers, and the metasystem itself. Hence, the infs are more “material” than their immediate material (or field) carriers. Indeed, they are directed to something bigger and represent something far larger and all-embracing (the metasystem), rather than their carriers or the sigh systems which coordinate them, especially when they step into the capacity of organizers.
Such a short introduction to the idea of systems of the information, the idea of the formation of new systems – infs, can only provoke the interest without any further claim of completeness. In case a deeper understanding and getting acquainted with the author’s original work, one has to get down to more profound research on those36. The concept of information can truly be understood in fullest only after certain specific systems are put to thorough observation. Moreover, if these systems of information are subjected to comparative analysis, some general conclusions on this form of systematizing and its development can be reached. We already have the necessary conceptual means to give an answer to the set at the beginning issues.
What is preserved in the mind uploading process performed under the ARTIFICIAL COMMISSURE procedure?
Obviously, that is the specific system of information on “psyche” or “personality”, while baring in mind that personality, as a system, grows on the foundation of the psyche in the process of socialization of the individual. As S. Petrov states: “The significant leap forward, related to the coming into existence of the human consciousness, is so much bigger, beyond any comparison to the transition between irritability and psychic, but it is headed in a different direction. For the ontology of the intracranial occurrences, the way consciousness exists does not differ significantly from the way the normal psyche exists…”37
Based on the system-information approach, we can state with great degree of concreteness and accuracy that in mind uploading done under the procedure “artificial commissure”, that which changes its medium and develops in a series of bodies with continuity and increasing perfection, is the system of information – personality.
In the schemes from Fig. 1 to Fig. 6 with a shining sphere, this system is indicated. Its essence can be briefly expressed as an associative self-sustaining vortex in the space of memory engrams. This system of information with a distinct individuality and uniqueness achieves self-preservation and is a manifestation of self-organization at the level of hyperstructure. Its dynamics are mainly determined by two factors: the sensory flow of information coming from the external and internal environment of the body and from the memory landscape, temporary and permanent. On the other hand, both the content and the structure of the memory depend on the dynamics of the system in question. That is why, after creating an appropriate “artificial commissure” between two brains, a common memory space is formed.(fig.№3) If one brain stops functioning, for whatever reason, the psyche will continue to exist and function because the memory space is preserved. Something similar happens in experiments to disrupt corpus calossum and other brain commissures, as well as in cases of massive hemorrhage in one hemisphere of the brain38
We have followed in detail and with great precision the whole discussion on the opportunities of the information stream to the problem psyche and personality. The wondrous idea about the informational nature of the psyche is discovered in many classical works in the field of psychology39, but as it is often the case, in the real-life development of science, there are always those few authors who are in quite a hurry to formulate the major thesis:
The psyche is information!40
Yes, but at a closer inspection and through the proper analyses41 it comes to view that this statement, no matter how easily argument it can be, is not sufficient. Information is a very broad term and cannot specify the psyche. As a result, thousands of pages of criticism were written and many people were ready to burn the wet with the dry. Realizing the empiric characteristics of the mentality42, even only down to an epitomized form, enables us to comprehend the emormity of the challenge and the needed endaevors to dive into any attempt to develop a theory on the mentality and the psychic processes. This theory has to naturally overcome at least two paradoxes – the psycho-physiological43 and the thermo-dynamical44, and along with those, as a logical continuation, to allow for deriving different specific mental processes – cognitive processes, emotions, will, consciousness, self-consciousness and awareness, and so on, from a one only standing point. Although the task represents an incredible challenge with a staggering difficulty, there happened to be authors, who took the risk of being crushed and demolished by the criticism, but who have offered ideas, and are trying to outline the shapes of the future theory45.
For us the most impressive of all steps was the so-called “given object of the subject”46 , in which the image of the object is revealed to the subject immediately, as if in “pure” form. “Such a givenness of the subject, through the mediation of brain processes, the object beyond it is the image possessing ideality and subjectivity.”47 In a whole sequence of publications 48, it was clearly pointed out, that the terms “information” and “information processes” could fundamentally solve this problem. Amongst the impressive amount of publications, Mr. D. I. Dubrivskii’s work stands out. He states:
“The starting point will be the correlation between information and signal. These terms are in no way identical. The signal is the material carrier of the information in the systems of information. Following N. Wiener’s logic, the information can be determined as the contents of the signal (the message)…
Let us examine a relatively elementary example of a mental reflection. On the one hand we have a person who is perceiving visually and for a short enough time object A (lets us assign the symbol a to the object) which is experienced by the person. Meanwhile in the central brain of the person there is a certain neurodynamic process going on) a certain neurodynamic structure) provoked by the impact of object A and responsible for the experience through which the individual is going through. (Let us assign the letter x to this neorodynamic equivalent of the object .) Naturally, it is considered that the subjective image and the neurodynamic carrier (a and x) happen simultaneously and have one and the same cause. However, these processes have to be distinguished: a is the ideal process, the subjective reality, and x is the material process happening in the brain; “х” is not a psychics process, it is not an ideal image of the object. It is an encoded reflection of object A. This neurodynamic code, existing in the central nervous system in the brain of the person is experienced by him or her exactly as an image; it is, so to say, subjected to decoding. The ratio between “a” and “x” can be referred to as a single case of the ratio between the information as a content and the signal as its form; “а” – the information in the object A received by the individual ; “х” – the material neurodynamic carrier of this information/ signal.
All these psychical occurrences, which we can call ideal, are nothing more than information passed on to the individual in it s immediate “pure” form. The signal, as a given organization of the elements, and the processes in the nervous system is always eliminated for the individual.”49 D. I.
Dubrovskii develops his own concept of the ideal, while in fact it all goes down to the abilities of the comprehensible information and the informational process to cover the larger problem about the psychic and at in fact the ability to interpret the psychic as the capability of the individual to possess immediate information in a most purified form. The analysis of the abibity of the social individual to operate with this information in time, that is to activate and inactivate the relative sequences of the nurodynamic systems, without giving any thought to them, leaning only on the information in its content, directly leads to the idea of individual organization of the information on a personal level and respectively to systems of information related to the psyche. Dubrovskii states: “The personality is capable of activating and inactivating a certain sequence of neurodynamic systems of x type and in fact is able to manage neurodynamic systems of a certain type. This can be interpreted only in the sense that the neurodynamic systems of x-type are self-controlled, organize themselves alone and that they create a personal level of self-organization in the whole system of the human individual.”50
In a later work of his, D. I. Dubrovskii develops in detail the informational approach to the issue of the psyche51. Anyone, who is curious to get acquainted with these ideas, can do so, but for us, and for me in particular, it was most interesting to research the reason for the agitated opposition against his visions and the merciless criticism he was subjected to.52 Our attitude and understanding of the informational stream to the psyche was and still is constructive and crucical, since these are the first working ideas we have come upon in this particular field. For us it was easily recognizable that something is missing, something had to be added and further developed, but as far as we are concerned, the direction of research is correct. Moreover, in comparison to the ideas on systematization of the information, it becomes fairly clear that the possibilities for coming up with a better theory are significantly increasing.
In Dubrovski’s studies it is cleanly and quite obviously emphasized on the necessity of a “personal level of organization”. But this specific need is even easier to identify while looking into some specific issues, derived from the concept. Let us take for example the question “How are we to interpret the fact that the objectively existent in the brain neurodynamic code is experienced by the subject as a subjective reality?” Of course, there is interest in this group of authors who believe that there are no copies, drawings or models of reflected reality in the nervous system, and only codes that are the neurodynamic equivalent of the image of that reality.
However, here pops in the question of decoding which is being solved in a rather different manner. P. K. Anohin defends the thesis that “there is a big possibility that precisely the consciousness is the last and most perfect decoding device which turns all kinds of nerve codes into a neutral image of the external object.” This thesis is severely attacked on the grounds that if that is true, the consciousness will end up being an external object in relation to the brain, something like a “third eye” or “a small creature” and so on. Dubrovskii, who also stands against this thesis, solves the issue by introducing “natural” and “alien” to the self-organizing system codes. Here the natural codes in their essence do not need any decoding procedures and represent the information in its pure and immediate form. (But here comes the question where is this information is transferred to?! To the nervous system? To the organism?! What does a “natural” code mean? Who or what is it unique to?!) We are of the persuasion that the answer to this question is directly linked to the thesis on the existence of a specific system of information which we call psyche, that is infs of the psyche, as well as to the specific features of this system.
Apparently, the nervous system is an excitable, capable of remembering environment with certain features. Our individual experience as psyche and the characteristics of the nero-physiological memory suggests that the first impacts coming from the environment (internal and external) for the given organism are not experienced as a subjective psychic image. A certain quantity of repetitions and impacts are needed here to allow for the subject of the psychic image to form.
Who and what decodes the newly perceived influence? – Not the organism, not the nervous system, nor the brain or any of the brain subdivisions, but the memorized previous influence.
The nervous system happens to be the environment where, as a result of the memory possessing, certain characteristics (associations, compartmenting), the influences begin to pilе up, between which the cooperation and the interrelation are becoming mutual COoperation between the components , and to actively form a new type of a system – a system of information of the psyche. The contents of the signals at the input point are related to the environment, and that is why the contents of the psyche can be depicted in such terms only.
As precisely pointed out in the far 60-s of the twentieth century by Hose Delgado, for the normal functioning of the system of the psyche a certain minimum sensory flow is needed. If, by any chance, this sensory flow is limited below the minimum53, serious disturbances in the psyche will occur. In general, those are reversible processes if the sensory flow is resumed. What is more, these types of impacts have recently become an extremely modern and informative tendency in the psychological research54 and they deserve serious attention. In the process of our research, these results presented an independent line of though which possess the ability to focus the attention to the character of the system of information formed in the nervous system in the process of the individual development. Most likely this is a system of information of a streaming type, a dissipative structure (something quite similar to Benard’s cells)55,formed in the space of the engrams of memory. This leads the researching process to the answer to the question how to overcome not only the psyche-physiological, but also the thermodynamic paradox of the psyche.
The information stream to the psyche must inevitably be developed and further enhanced as a systematic informational approach which implies to actively use the term “system of information” where the psyche will not only be determined as a system of information, but also as a system of information of a certain type (dissipative system of information). V. I Kremianskii made the first step, imagining the psyche as a system of information, however, without specifying this system and being fully satisfied with a most generalized description. The development of a system-informational approach to the psychic is still at its beginning, and we are yet to realize and appreciate the results coming form the thesis: the psyche is a system of information of a certain dissipative kind!
* What are the mechanisms of preservation?
The genetic system of information, it implements self-preservation and continuous incoming development based on a complex and mediated process.Information, all information about the organism and species is transcribed onto a new DNA molecule (or molecules, if we talk about all genes). And this is done through an amazing process of just copying which is called replication, in which emerge two absolutely identical copies of the parent molecule DNA.
The process of replication of the DNA chain allows the infs of the genetic information to be transferred and to create a new organism. Besides, any mistake in the process goes in the direction of a lethal outcome (the new organism is distorted, not equipped to survive, and that eventually lead to its death), or sets the beginning of a new quality which holds on and makes the new formation more adaptable and more perfected. The second option happens much more seldom.
Original DNA molecule
With two DNA molecules , replicas identical to the original one.
Through the division and differentiation of cells follows the construction of the whole organism with all its peculiarities. For our purpose, it is not necessary to describe the whole process, it is sufficient to make the following fundamental distinction: „… There are two types of units of natural selection and there is no dispute between them. The gene is a unit of natural selection as a replicator. The body is a unit of natural selection as a carrier. Both units are important. None of them need to be downplayed. They are two completely different types of units and we would be hopelessly confused until we understand the distinction in question.”56
The evolution of living systems is realized by the scheme:
Essentially, the scheme reveals a positive feedback in self-preservation and development as a system of information (in this case genetic) is developing a series of specific carriers (organisms, generations of organisms). If we take into account the mutations and evolutionary enhancements, this represents a sequence of organisms with increasing perfection and continuation.
The existence and the enhancement of the systems of information can be comprehended as a process of self-organization at a hyper-structural level based on the stream of diversity of the internal and external environment for the system (meaning the dissipative hyper-structure). The existence and the normal functioning of a given inf require specific space, provided by the system-carrier. This certain space is created by the organ which supports the needed memory and the processes in it – the DNA for the inf of the genetic information; the neuron net (the brain) for the inf for the psychic information, as well as the organs which account for the stream of information from the external and the internal environment (the sensors), so as the organs which exercise the controlling influence upon the carrier system (the effectors), its behavior and the processes inside it, and so on. The space, which the carrier system provides, largely determines what qualities the information system will have. On the contrary, since self-reproduction, the regulation and the overall behavior depend on the system of information, the perfection of the carrier system depends on it, too.
Obviously, the improvement is performed in a closed loop: the system of information refines its carrier system; the carrier system creates “space” for the existence and development of the system of information with advanced capabilities, which again leads to a new refinement of the carrier system, etc.
Is such a scheme possible for psyche and personality inf !?
The properties of the associativity and distribution of neurophysiological memory, which ensure that the memory space of the brain is capable of a process similar to DNA replication, make this question reasonable.The cybernetic version of personal immortality, mind uploading on „artificial commissure“ procedure is in essence a request for the implementation of the same scheme, but already for the inf of the psyche and personality!
What are the limits of this preservation?
The system of information – psyche in the human individual takes a significant qualitative leap and, on the basis of its new possibilities, connected with all manifestations of the transition from the sensual to the rational reflection of reality, retaining the basic characteristics and on their basis, it becomes a new system of information – personality. Personality develops on the foundation of the psyche, but the leap that accompanies this growth is huge and with serious consequences for the whole system.
Personality, as a system of information, possesses qualities such as consciousness and self-awareness which dynamize and channel the activity of the system in magnitude more than any information process till that point. In addition, the consciousness and self-consciousness of the person is information and knowledge about reality which in its forms of scientific consciousness is not just any knowledge, but knowledge that reaches the hidden nature of things, which penetrates deep into the occurrences and reaches their essence, to the cause-effect chains accounting for the occurrence of one phenomenon or other, to the truth about reality. Moreover, the richer and more adequate the network of concepts and laws is, the more advanced the scientific consciousness is, the greater the opportunity for growth and deeper comprehension and stepping into the essence of the world is. The image of the world is so much richer and more saturated, as is its adequacy within the real Universe where we live in. The system of information “psyche” takes a leap and becomes a new “personality” system of information and at the same time reaches a potential opportunity for unlimited growth and development. The roots of this possibility are in the fact that personal content is knowledge of the internal and external realities of the system, which can be verified in practical activity and brought to a degree of the truth about that reality. The more developed, dynamic and true the knowledge system is, the more new lines of growth and development are being discovered. The correct answer to a crucial question always raises a few more! Humanity’s knowledge, and in particular scientific knowledge, shows a steady exponential growth that can only be limited by externally positioned factors. The more successfully the problem of survival and self-preservation is solved, the more adequate and successful the activity of the system is in solving this problem, and the newer and richer possibilities disclosed for it are.
Once formulated in the terms of general systems theory, the mind uploading makes the overall scheme visible and clear. This general scheme is the interaction between the inf and the carrier in a positive feedback of improvement in the process of existence and development. It is performed for the first time in the genetic systems of information and the biological organisms in the process of evolution, but it could be carried out in a much more impactful and more expanded version in the inf of the of the personality and on the basis of the constructed and developed on the grounds of science and technology artificial organism – the recipient of the personality. This scheme has been successfully applied into the analysis of the movement and development of society as a whole, and is the first common theory of development of society (K. Marx), although no cybernetics was yet formed at the time of its birth . Cybernetics, general systems theory, information theory, and its continuation – theory of systems of information had not yet been formed. With the development of these scientific branches, the scheme actually became much more concrete, more effective and applicable. In this way, and for the first time, on the basis of this systemic model, it becomes possible from a single point of view to study the individual at the individual level and the individual at the ‘society’ level, without losing any specificity and detail.
If we introduce human society through the proposed system model and go from the hypothesis that the cybernetic version of personal immortality has already been reached, then a positive feedback in the development of society becomes a positive feedback without restriction. It describes an exponentially expanding “explosion” of self-preservation and system-formation that acquires the features of super-preservation and, like a wave, propagates into the macro, micro, and mega world, and rearranges and restructures it. The most important points are:
– The existence of a threshold whose overcoming quickly leads to the transformation of a positive feedback into a singularity. There has been positive feedback since primary life came to existence, there has also been over-conservation. However, this over-preservation and this positive feedback are significantly limited by the conditions of the planet where life originated. The substratum and the form of living systems are determined by the chemical composition and physical conditions of the planet’s surface and in its blind evolutionary development life cannot dramatically exceed the parameters of the environment in which it originated. Only when man came to exist, with human society and civilization, and with it the cessation of biological evolution, it became possible to overcome the limitations of the primary conditions and the expansion of life in unusual conditions. This expansion is based on the activity of consciousness and reason and the humanized environment of existence. But the further we move away from the primary conditions of origin and development of life, the more the difficulties increase and the more the costs of the various resources go up, too. The biological substrate becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the unlimited development. This contradiction in the development of human society is precisely about breaking the threshold, and that implies the following: while maintaining continuity, the most significant of human essence, to move to a new substrate basis, with more qualities and possibilities than the biological substrate. Overcoming this threshold for the first time means the transition of consciousness and reason from a conservative and unaltered carrier, from a biological substrate to a new carrier with a wide variety of substrate57 bases and an appropriate organization and structure, as this process of substrate change will become something familiar and natural in order for the process to be able to expand continuously and infinitely.
– Positive feedback without restrictions.
Positive “inf – carrier” feedback in the case of the cybernetic version of personal immortality becomes positive feedback without a restriction. This unlimited positive feedback is due primarily to the properties of the human mind and consciousness. In order for effective and optimal management to be implemented, it is essential for the systems of information to reflect the internal and external environment of the system. It is also important to take into consideration what the correspondence between the original and the reflection is. Of course, there is compliance even with the first systems of information, but it is reached by trial and error, and it is difficult to cope with the changes that will occur in the future. Infs are evolving and perfecting – the peak of this development and refinement is the emergence of systems of information with the quality of consciousness and self-consciousness (human personality). The most important point is that, in these systems, the correspondence between the original and the reflection is complete. We are not talking about a correspondence that can be characterized simply as more complete and accurate, but rather about a correspondence that reaches the essence of the phenomena, the causes of the events to the degree of truth. Quite naturally, public consciousness as a whole reaches the process of searching for the truth, but one fact should not be neglected and ruled out: that the carrier of public consciousness is the consciousness of the individual. A system of information whose movement and development acquires the quality of consciousness (reason, intellect) is not just another step in the development of the systems of information, but rather a qualitative leap where a minimum threshold of perfection is reached. I personally accept the principle of world cognition and I believe that human consciousness is capable of creating cognitive constructions that reflect reality with arbitrarily high levels of accuracy and adequacy, i.e. it is capable of achieving the truth. But on the basis of true knowledge, which reaches the essence of phenomena, consciousness is capable of realizing any reorganization of the system, as long as it exists in the field of objective possibilities. Consciousness is capable of performing at any moment its self-preservation, as long as it is embedded in the existing reality and thus it exhausts these possibilities, i.e. it exercises its over-preservation, which is another name for the cybernetic version of personal immortality. The conscious-quality information system is able to optimally manage and achieve self-preservation in an extreme way, exhausting the possibilities of the environment, i.e. it can realize an optimal “trajectory” of system formation. (Precisely this position of ours allowed us to develop and present58 a model of the Universe from a systemic point of view based on the outlined singularity, starting from the based on a systematic model of personal immortality.) In essence, these ideas and model studies represent a new independent direction for the study of technological singularity59.
* Can the so-called mind uploading preservation made under the „Artificial Commissure” procedure be classified? (Are there any analogues in reality?)
The fixed system perceptions of the process of personal immortality in its cybernetic variant definitely deprive it of the qualification “miracle” and turn it into a regular and necessary process for the existence and development of human society. The preservation and development of a system of information with the nature of super-preservation have been realized since the advent of life on Earth – this is the evolution of living systems. With the advent and development of human society and reaching a certain stage in the development of science and technology, it becomes possible and necessary to realize the preservation and development of another type of information system – the human personality, which also acquires the character of over-preservation. Yes, this preservation is exceptional and unlimited in time – real personal immortality. The difference is that the new over-preservation of personality grows unlimited and exponentially into a well-defined singularity, fueled by the unlimited diversity in the world and the unlimited possibilities for the growth of human knowledge and consciousness.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading ; http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Uploading/ ; https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mind_uploading , Keith Wiley ,A Taxonomy and Metaphysics of Mind-Uploading; https://philpapers.org/browse/mind-uploading
2 David J. Chalmers, Mind Uploading: A Philosophical Analysis, David Chalmers, “The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis” (2010), Massimo Pigliucci, Mind Uploading: A Philosophical Counter‐Analysis, Keith Wiley ,A Taxonomy and Metaphysics of Mind-Uploading (2014)
4 J. Bernal “The World, the Flesh and the Devil”, 1929. “… who first thought of this; probably the physicist J. Bernal, who in 1929 published his full of scientific predictions book entitled “The World, the Flesh, and the Devil.” In this thin and sold out long ago book (I sometimes wonder what the 60-year-old Royal Society member thinks now of his teenage thoughts, whether he even remembers them), Bernal concluded that the many limitations inherent in the human body can only be overcome with the help of mechanical devices and prostheses, so that, after all, only the brain can remain in the original organic human body.”(Artur Clark)
5 Arthur Clark, “Profiles of the Future”, 1962, from Chapter 18.
6 Wernicke A., “Biologism and the ideological struggle”, M., 1981 p.159; Molchanov G. “Robot in Human Skin”, LIC, etc .;
7 Victor Glushkov, “Relay of Spiritual Immortality”, 1976, Vitaliy Moev, “Dialogue with the Future”, 1977, 1981;
8 Kolev T., Primov G., “Holographic Model of Memory”, Orbita, 18, 1978; Kolev T. “Can we put new meaning into the idea of personal immortality,” in “Men, Evolution, Cosmos,” 1,1983. p.74 -88 .
9 Kolev T., “Homo eternitatis”, 1978, manuscript submitted to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences for discussion; “Scientific and Technical Revolution and Update on the Problem of Limited Individual Development in Man”, 1979 manuscript submitted to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences for discussion at the Institute of Philosophy.
11 https://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/ (Mind Uploading Home Page) It happened in the 1990s.!
12 Pekelis Victor., “Is Immortality Possible?”, Literary Russia, also “Cybernetic Mix”, S., Tech., 1972, p.171
13 Bertalanffy L. von, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, N.Y.,1986, London 1971.;
14 Yearbooks: “System Studies” (USSR) and “General Systems” (USA), System Research Sources and General Systems Theory are several thousand;
15 N.F. Ovchinnikov, “Principles ofpreservation ”, M., 1966, p. 302;
16 Markov V.A., “The Problem of preservation and Modern Science”, Riga, 1980, p.31; 13. P.A. Vodopyanov, “Sustainability and Dynamics of the Biosphere”, Minsk, 1981, pp. 35-36;
17 Vodopyanov PA, Sustainability and dynamics of the biosphere, Minsk, 1981, pp. 35 -36
18 Kolev T., “The Concept of ‘System’: from theory of functional systems to general theory of systems”, in Philosophical Thought magazine , Book 2, 1984; Kolev T., “Systematic and Preservation”, Coll. Methodology of Science, BAS, S., 1989, pp. 141-152;
19 Kolev T. “Philosophical and Methodological Analysis of the Concepts of General Systems Theory”, dissertation defended in 1987 in the Institute of Philosophy of BAS; Kolev TJ, “Opportunity for Construction of General Systems Theory ”, , Book 10, in Philosophical Thought magazine, 1988;
20 P.K. Anokhin, “Principal Questions of General Theory of Functional Systems”, in Sat. Principles of system organization of functions, M., 1973;
21 Sat. Principles of system organization of function, Anokhin PK, “Principal issue, general theory of functional, x systems”, Moscow, Nauka, 1973, p.28;
22 Kolev T., “The Concept of ‘System’: from theory of functional systems to general theory of systems”, in Philosophical Thought magazine , Book 2, 1984
24 Klaus G., “Cybernetics and Philosophy”, 1963, p. 151;
25 Ananiyev B., “Man as a Subject of Knowledge”, S., Science and Art, pp. 121-196; Abishev K. “Human, Individual, Personality”, Alma-Ata, 1978; Mislivchenko A.G., “Man as a Subject of Philosophical Knowledge”, S., Science and Art, 1977,;…
26 H. Delgado, “Brain and Consciousness”, M., Mir, 1971. 70, José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado,” Physical Control of the Mind”, 1969;
27 Ananiyev B., “Man as a Subject of Knowledge”, S., Science and Art .;
28 Wiener N., “Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in Animal and Machine”, Transl. since 1958; 2, M., 1968, p. 201;
29 Bertalanffy L. von, “General Systems Theory – A Critical Review”, in Collected Studies on General Systems Theory, Progress, M., 1969, p.44, (L. von Bertalanffy,” General System Theory – A Critical Review , “General Systems”, vol.VII, 1962, p.1-20.);
30 V.I. Kremianskii, “Methodological Problems of a Systematic Approach to Information”, Nauka, 1977, pp. 3-4
31 V.I. Kremianskii, pp. 3-4;
32 V.I. Kremyanskii , pp 33.;
33 Smith C.S., “Structure, Substructure, and Superstructure” – “Reviews on Modern Physics”,v.36,N2,1964
34 Kremianskii V.I., “Structural Levels of Living Matter”, 1969, p.188
35 . Sat. Management, information, intelligence, M., 1976, pp. 175-194 .; Biryukov B.V., “Cybernetics and Methodology of Science”, M., Nauka, 1974, pp.219 – 365;
36 Kremianskii V.I., “Methodological Problems of Systematic Approach to Information”, ed. Science, M., 1977; Information systems as a subject of research, in Sat. “Cybernetics and modern scientific knowledge”, ed. Nauka , M., 1976; “Structural Levels of Living Matter”, ed. Naika, M., 1969. and others.;
37 Petrov Sava, “Methodology of the Substrate Approach”, Science and Art, 1980, p. 230;
38 The experiments of Myers R.E. and Sperry R.W. in the 1950s. A more detailed history of these studies Springer S.P., Deutsch G. “Left Brain, Right Brain” 1981, p.33 -72.
39 Leontiev A.N., “Problems of the Development of the Psyche”, ed., Moscow, 1981; Vekker L.M., “Psychic Processes”,Vol.I,II,III , 1974-1981..
40 Bratko A.A., Kochergin A.N., “Information and Psyche”, Novosibirsk 1977, sat. Management, Information, Intelligence, M., 1976, pp.321-324., Etc .; Dubrovskii D.I., “Information, Consciousness, Brain”, M., 1980. and others.;
41 Tsechmistro I.Z. “Search for the Quantum Concept of the Physical Basis of Consciousness”, M., 1981; Stepov R., “The Ideal from Mystery to Theory”, S., 1998;
42 Vecker L.M., Psychic processes, vol. 1, ed. Leningradsky District, 1974;
43 Petrov Sava, “Substrate Approach Methodology:, Science and Art, 1980;
44 Kobozev N.I., “Research in the field of thermodynamics of processes of information and thinking”, Moscow Publishing House, 1971;
45 Vekker L.M., “Psychic Processes”,Vol.I,II,III , 1974-1981
46 Sat. Management, Information, Intelligence, M., 1976, pp.321-24;
47 Dubrovskii D.I., “Information, Consciousness, Brain”, M., 1980;
48 Dubrovskii D.I., “Information, Consciousness, Brain”, M., 1980; Bulygin A.V., “Towards the Origins of the Ideal”, Leningrad Publishing House, 1988. reviews the approach .; Dubrovskii D.I. “The Problem of the Ideal”, M., 1983;
49 Quote by Dubrovskii from Sat. Management, Information, Intelligence, M., 1976, pp.321-24;
50 Dubrovskii D.I., “Information, Consciousness, Brain”., M., 1980;
51 Dubrovskii D.I. , “The Problem of the Ideal”, M., 1983;
52 Stepov R., “The Ideal from Mystery to Theory”, S., 1998
53 Delgado H., “Brain and Consciousness”, M., Mir, 1971. 70, José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, “Physical Control of the Mind”:, 1969;
54 Grof St., “Psychology of the Future”, S., LiK, 2000; original: Grof St., “Psychology of the Future”, 2000
55 Nicolis G., Prigogine I., Exploring complexity, 1989, translation into Russian “Knowledge of the complex”, M., Mir, 1990, p.13 -20.
56 Докинс Р., Себичният ген, изд. „Изток Запад“2015, стр.10., Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th anniversary edition,2006.
57 „Once it is possible to move a mind from one substrate to another, it is then called a substrate-independent mind (SIM)“ http://www.minduploading.org/ , It’s about the same substrate independence of mind that Dr. Randal Coene is talking about – . Substrate-Independent Minds ; http://rak.minduploading.org/ , even though we are thinking of achieving this in completely different ways.
58 Kolev T., “Systematic Approach to the Cosmosation of Society”, 1985, First National Astronautical Conference with International Participation, Cosmos-85; Kolev T., Krivoshapkova M., “A Model of the Universe in terms of General Systems Theory”, National Seminar “From Rutherford to Collider …”, March 24-25, 2011; Kolev T. “Personal Immortality Without Mysticism and Religion”, publishes Association .”Sub Specie Aeternitatis – 2011”, Chirpan, 2012, Ch. Man and the Universe, pp.323 – 364.