Research and Development in USSR Cybernetics

57 Pages·1969·21.756 MB·English

by  CCM Information Corporation

Research and Development
in
USSR Cybernetics
Research & Microfilm Publications
U.S. Government Translation of
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS IN USSR
CYBERNETICS
Moscow
1969
This document is prepared by Xerox Copyflo. Since the
publishers have access only to those documents
translated and prepared by the U.S. Joint Publications
Research Service, the quality of text and illustrative
· material herein is limited by the quality of the documents
Received by Research & Microfilm Publications.
CCM INFORMATION CORPORATION
A subsidiary of Crowell Collier and Macmillan, Inc.
909 Third Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10022
JPllS: 47,821
10 April 1969
l ,
I
l
1.-
~
·lI
msa ~cs .
~ Iia
1
CCffl'EWTS PAGE
·l
Cybernetic l.bdellng ot Thought · · · .'1,
1
(Krnmnm-J st Belorussii) 1 ;
----- ----.. o ISi e, ee o •••oo • •••••• •••.• • ••• ooe ece• • ~ .
Reading Automat.ion . ;i
(Now i Zh;J.zn') ••••••••• ~ ••••••••••••• , •••••••••• ~ •••• 11 .?!I
·.j
·1
Reflect.ions on the Structure ot Inductive logic
(Voproey r11oeoa,1>~··•···························•·•·· 16
•
[ I • tESil • N]
"';. =. ,. _____ .,,""'"'_ ________________________________________
.,..-.-
.-c.:.-•. -~----.1.~ '.!o~1· ....• • • _.,,-! /....,..,l_',.' ~-~-• ·' .,
•L-~
--=---- --===- -:::;.._~
, ,
·• •• 1 ; ' • \ • t •~ ~ ! ••· ; ,• I l. I•,,• f;-_f
; •,• ... . l .. . I '·h. ·:. ') _, ). f"' ... ;-:., ~. . -, :: ,·,,
, ...' ,. ), H,: I,:··, ... ,, . ..J • I ; I I•, '" ,f,; - I• •'•.,•. , j•
• _. -: ( ,• ," •.~ I f •:, • ft • •: :,- ~-.,
~-\ 't ·• ·-•.. ' ' :' f i .:_ :~ '! ,.. ~ · r I '--;.
.. ,,_··; .'., l :1 ·iq \ ' c.. • ~(.: ,11.;.1.;:,.·\ I ...' . . !,,' ,·:,,. ,,·,·) .Ht.,,_•-:-ri:
_.l ·.•: •'.\ i-; .'ti ;\;, J .. la ·•·:;;,t .. ·. ... ,
·\ ~ ~· .': . 1:1 ~ .I J.. .,. I ... : .., ' ..- ,'i ·.., ·. I. F. , \.
CYB!RN!TIO tam.ItfO a, THOOCIHT :
-•.- :£-• - , •'\"\.,·I' ·: .-~,, ,_I ; . ,._ • I • • • >j • • ' ;;_, /'., •. •;,_,,,. 't I
J • / J ,.Ir. -
[Article ~ Prof•••or A. Sptrlda. Doctor of. l'hllo~phlcal Science•• •. ·:
Mo■cow; Mln•k• IColmlunl■t Beloru■■IID ltua■lan. No 11., Noveaber 1968.
pp 31-37)
< I
The creative develo,-ent of cybernetic• ha• in a thoroughgoing
and entirety convincing fashion corroborated the need for the most In•
•
tl•te contact between lt and the phllo■ophy of dialectical materlall•9
The solid connection disclosed between the pressing problems of phllo••
ophy and the problema on which cybemetlca la vorklng has demonstrated
that this la at the present time proving to be an exceptionally ·
■clence
methodological tool for lnveatl~atlng a
■lgnlflcant general-■clentlflc
multitude of natural• ■oclal. and spiritual procea■ea. Such a tool la,
In particular. made up of the cybemetlc categories of 'Information•• · •
'control,' •organization.• 'feedback.' and other
'■elf-organization.•
concept•• a■ well as the treatments of new fields of mathematic•• which ·~
categories are and the very rich technical resource• '·
the■e ■tlmulatlng.
I
of whlc~ are being applied in extensive fields of science
cybemetlc■ I
\,.
and practice of range.
ever-increa■lng
I
I
One of the cardinal phllo■ophlcal problem■ ln cybemetlcs·has
been and reniaina the problea of artificial "intelligence." the problea
of whether a machine-can think, about which the heated debates have
not even yet died down, Some believe that thl■ l■ not an urgent proble••
other• that its urgency of the highest degree. others that the
l■ ■till ·11
probleftl la not a rightful one. a fourth group that the very attempt la
I
to model the human Intellect stupid, while even ln tum cherish
l■ other■
a fifth opinion that the preceding one la unintelligent. and ao on. Thl'a
debate ls going on both ln oral conaunlcatlon and In the press. Thus. I
the newspaper Vechemly Minsk of 29 December 1967 publl■hed an article I
•
by Profe■■or A. ICarlyuk ·entltled "Can a Machine Think?" This article
[
enunciated the Idea of the qualitative, ■oclohlstorlcal ■peclftclty of
man and his of the ancillary role of •logic" machines, and of
rea■on,
the fundamental Irreducibility of human thinking to the logic operations
~
of cybernetic devices.
1l
,\,
In reply to this article the Zvyazda of 14 March 1968 ran an 1rl
article by P. Prot•Hnl and A. Rakov captioned "Not Advice. but Charad•••" ~
vhlch In a coaruly hard-■elllna and satirical t'llle ■poke of the first
f
1'
'\
I
• I •
~
~
!·
,, J
)
...._ - )
......
I . •
r: .,-· ·:rir··· b:s :: ·;.· ,· •{ •··· 21ww ·· :tr t I tr
·tr It;
I
I,
'
I
j
tllua, •A. ICarlyuk ~• taken up a ■tranae po1lt1on for a 1clent11t.· He
l
belte¥9e It offen1tve and ln1ultln1 to hU111an dignity to c0111pare the
I Intellect vlth 1thou1htl1•• autmata.• Thie 'noble 1ndt1natton' 1erve1
I
a• the around• for conclucllna that 'attempt, to r•place man by a machine
I illult be refuted tn advance.• But what do the fact, confirm? The author••
('
theala contradict• the whole ht1tory of the development of culture, the
l
IIOlt important feature.of which 11 preci1ely the replacement of man by
I
I a uchlne, flr■t in tile aru of phy1tcal, and then of intellectual labor.•
t
In P. Prota1ent and A. Rakov'1 article tt ts asserted that the
probl• of mdeltng the •ntal functton1 of man on a computer 11 •quite
realistic and to a 1lgnlflcant degree effected_i n practice.•
I
!.
! The thought occura to• that the different viewpoint• In the••
arguaent1 t1sue from the different understanding of such fundamental
categorlee a1 •man,• 'thlnklna, • •con1clouene11,1 'machine,' 'Image,'
and• 1ucce11lon of
other■•
•
It must be etated that philosophy has no ba1l1 for erecting any
aethodologlcal barrier, either In coanltlve or In creative activity.
The history of actence, particularly In recent decade,, has entirely
altered our concept, of the po11lble and the Impossible. The thought
ful IIOdem philosopher Is Inclined to have a more skeptical attitude
toward scientific dogma,. He takes a dlffere·nt approach even to what
previously aome tended to regard a• 1omethlng Impossible. Nowadays
'the term 'lmpos1lble' 11 becoming Increasingly discredited -- If, of
· course, It 11 1omethtng within the framework of objective laws which
11 under dl1cu11ton.
I
, Dialectical material!• proceed• from the fact that every sort
[ of pattem 11 concrete and qualitatively specific. Every level of the .
tI 1tructure of matter niuat be approached with regard to Its qualitative
f determinacy. In thl1 the higher Includes the lover as one of Its prea•
f', laea and at the ume tl• a1 Its own basta.
l
1
When scrutinizing the problea of •consclousnes1 and cybern•tlca•
I
! '· · · tt ••t be taken Into account that the problem of "man and hi• lntelll•
f :, ·" aence• ta not only and not 10 much a cybemetlcal problem. Thls la
f a problem of the whole c011poslte of modem sciences of nature, 1oclety,
, and man.
•
/ The controver1y which 11 occurring over thi1 matter 11 taking
r place because 1ome author■ are unrtghtfully clal•lng that the probleni
/ .. ,- of hlBlln intelligence, tu 1tructure, and the fea1lbillty of modeling
,·.
.it ii entirely encornpa11ed within the frameword of the categories
I
which cybernetic• utilizes. Thia ii an unlawful claim. The h1a11an
t!, ·'· · brain and the products of ta activity represent nn extraordlnarl ly
COIi•
pltcated phenomenor1 of phy1tcochemtcal, blologtcd, physiological,
/-' paychologlcal, 101.tcal, ltnautatlc, cybernetic, sociological, esthetlc,
l .
l • 2 -
[.
I .
r
and phlloaophlcal nature• . Thrucia . .
knOllft to ■ctence have H°•"t nal of -alLthe-fora■ of .aotlon of 1111tter
oua unit In the brain-. the'i::"" thaaelvea Into a alngle:conUnu.
nal characteristic• of the con■ el of cybemetlc IIOdellng such cardl•.
1
Ideal • •wnt • •mott-· • , c ouanea■ a■ •aubjectlve Image,• 'the
• • ·•• conaclen •
ll■lta. ce, and ao ,on remain beyond lta
One of the Important probl
t · •
gatlon of ■an and his Intellect 8118 In ·thla aort of composite lnveatl•
1
and Internal conditions of er • to uncover the social determination
feats Itself, 81 well as the eatlvlty In all spheres In which It manl•
. •tructure-of our Intellect and conaclouane•••
In the approach to the bl · ·
• onesidedneaa of thla type la .:0 811 of artificial thinking Intolerable
that thinking arlsea from t etlmea perpetrated thft aupposltlon
I •e
that It la a natur cha ~ raorganlc physiological brain processea,
1
thinks just becauaa It lracherlatlc of the Individual, and that brain
• t • 1 t e brain. The ~g belief la encountered
hat everything depends on how the brain .la organized and what physlo-·
logical proce11es go on-In lt. Hence lt ls deduced that It ts enough :
to create a model of the brain for this IIOdel to begin to produce
thoughta, Ideas, feelings, and effort■ of will. This assumption ls
naive. · ·
The &ht of the matter la that Intellect ls_. not simply a natural
property of the brain and of man. In the last analysla the true subject
of conaclouaneaa and reason la not only not the br~ln, and not even 11an
as such, but aoclet~. A social organlsa thinks tn the person of man .
by means of hla brain. Man thinks ln a social fashion only as the sub
ject of history. Han leama to think by mastering the logic of utlllzlna
the prapatlc. world which la undergoing creation by all preceding history,
logic, and by all culture. Alwaya and everywhere man carries with him
self his whole lndlvldual history and the history of mankind. The hand
and the brain, nourishment and multlpllcatton, hereditary. changes, even
pathological change• ar•, ln Marx's words, the result of past world i
history. The specifically human level of the determination of mental
i
processes, processes of thought, consist In the social condltlons of
'
existence. [
I'
:I
Man I■ a social creature representing the highest level of devel• !'
opment of living organisms on earth, capable of producing the tools uf I'
labor and of e11ploytna the• tn hb-action on his environment, and possess- ·
I
In&. articulate speech, consclou■ness, and weltanschauung. Han ls the
subject of labor, thought, aensattona, will, beliefs, and COIIIIIUnlcatlon. i'I:
He ts the subject of scrutiny of the totality of social sciences, as
well as of certain dlvlslons of the natural sciences, medicine, and the
I~
technical sciences, vhlch analyze 1111n fr011 their nwn speclftc angle of i
contemplation. Philosophy, expressing the essenre of man and.of hls
relation to the world, has been s..-oned to effect an Integral theoretl• I
cal lnvestlgatlon of man.
t
• 3 - 'I
'f
~-
- -----------------------. ~
,1
..... ;.
·,,.~
-
In pre-Marxlat and non-Marxlat atudle■ auch conatltuent charac-
.. certatlca of ..n aa intellect, the ability to operate with •yaab01• and
co·thtnk, are u■ually dlattn1utahed. It la precisely herein, and often
only herein, that the dect■lve dl■tlnctlon betveen man and antmal• 1•
1een. Marxt• haa deaon■trated that theH properties do tndeed comprise
the char~ctert■tlc featurea of man, but that they are derivative, not
,: ort1lnal, tn nature tn deter111tntng the ••••nee of man. The Initial
characterl■tlc of man la the capacity for effecting conscious tran■•
I'
,. foraatlon of reality by arttflclally created toola. "The first htatorl•
cal act ••• of lndlvtduala by whtch they differ f·rom animals does not
rI '.
r . • consist ln their tblnktna. but ln their beginning to produce the mean•
I vhlch are neceaaary to theai for life" (Karl Marx and Friedrich Enaela,
·Sochlnenlya [Works], Vol 3 p 19).
0
•
Althouah conaclousneaa and aelf-conaciouaneas are essential to
•an, man ls not Identical either to conaclousnesa or to aelf~consctoua$
neaa, aa ldeallata assume. As does any llvlng creature, man need his
•
bodily nature, for the body constitutes hla only natural life. But
..n cannot be reduced either to hla spiritual prtn~lple or to his bOdlly
oraantzatlon. He Is a unity both of the natural and of the social,
I. both of the physical and of the spiritual, both of the hereditary and
of that developed In life.
• I.. Marxl• refute• metaphyalcal and ldeallattc Idea■ of the exl■tence
,, of Innate Idea■ and capacities, unchangeable properties of the psychic
life of man. The anatomophyalologlcal lnatlncta with which a child ts
!
I. bom cannot In themselve■ lead to the rise of cc,n,plex psychic peculi•
I - -;
I . arttl~•• These trait■ do not appear tn the proceas of the lndlvldual
I '.·. , .... development of a person, but are formed, for the child learns to be
t ..... -, '· a person ln communication with adulta. The aaslmllatlon of aoclal,
I
lald•down types and forms of activity and the transforma
t hl■torlcally
I tion of them Into hla own active capabilltlea are the main condition
i
II and the declalve mechani• Jn the Individual process of becoming a man.
I·
The starting point of the Marxlat concept of man ls treatment
·of ht• as a derivative froa aoclety, •• the result of rise and develop.
sent of aoclal~labor activity, for In his whole physical and spiritual
beina •• upright aalt, cerebral atructure, general facial feat~res.
.. i •·• the shape of ht■ hands, · his speech, emotions, and Intellect •• man ta
1
-Indebted to the labor and aoclal relationships which have taken shape
iI , ;~ ,•I • I \I ' on that foundation. •
I
I
Man ta not somethlna one• and forever given and comp'leted. He
i
( I• a concrete•hlatortcal being changing in the course of active trans
I
.,\1·, formation of the natural and aoclal world. The f~rmatlon of the physical
construction and of the aplrltual itructure of man ls the product of
u-n•• Intellect, hll aplritU1Jl capacities and inter-
._ un l versa l ht s t o ry • na d
· .•,·. e1t1, are f orae d 1r , labOr and e111bodie In lta result■• By what signs ,
a■ked Lenin, can ~e Judie of the real thought■ 1nd emotions of the real ..n t
- 4 -
1.
',
·1
":,•·'- . -
:: a ·· a r r r
$$:XV : 1¢ ·: ·· x 2 ·rt ~ 1 · ·er t1tf ,·:: rt1l¥ s : >:i:&rt1thr:ds s'ritittbctr de
And he anawred, "Naturau,, there can be but one •uch •Ian:••_. aotlOft. •
The natural prehlatory of ..n preceded hla •oc.lal hl•tory, . 'nlla I.
prehl•tory vaa the evolution of the anataaophyalologlcal atructure, the
amona
aeraa of labor activity the anthropoid ape•, the develop111ent of
areaarloua relatlon1hlp• In the hlaher animal•, ~and the-evolution of
audio and·-,tor Mana of •l&nallng. But the comparatively high level
of development of animal• In the anthropoid ape atage lnnedlately pre•
ceding the appearance of man contained only the opportu~lty for the
genesi1 of man. The decldlns condition of'the actual transformation
of the anthropoid ape Into man was labor. The start of manufacture of
artificial toola of labor stanlfled the ,tart of the rise of man. Labor
proved to be the determining Influence on the development of conscl0\18•
nes1, on the perfection of the cerebral structure and of its cognitive
capacities. "First labor, and then and together with it articulate
speech were the tvo mo•t Important stimuli under whose influence the
brain of the apea vaa gradually transformed into the human brain"
•
(Friedrich !ngela, Dlalektlka prlrody [Natural Dialectics], 1955,
pp 135-136)
Animal• cannot produce radical change• In the condition• of
their existence; they adapt to their environment and depend on It;
they are fettered to a certain element-• air, water, or the dry
land -- which determines their mode of life. Man himself creates
the conditions of his existence by transforming-hi• natural environ
ment. Here man differ• from the animal ''not only In that he changes
the form of that whlch is given by nature; In that which ls given by
nature he atmultane·>usly also realizes his own cognitive goal which aa a
law determines the •nner and nature of his actions and to which he
mu■t
subject his will" (Karl Marx, ~pital [Capital], Vol l, p 185).
Before every person entering life la spread out the world of
objects and social transformation• In which la embodied and objectified
the activity of preceding generations. It ta exactly this humanlfled
world In which every object and proce•• Is, as tt were, charged with -
human meaning, aoclal function, and purpose that surrounds man~ And
only through It does man enter Into connection with natur~. Assimilat
ing thla already hU'llanlfled nature the child In various ways unites
with the human easence and the existence of culture. In thh union
of the person each of hla human relationships to the world•· sight,
hearing, smell, ta■te, touch, thought, contemplation, emotion, desire,
actlvlty, love In a work• all the organ• of his Individuality,
participate •
The historically forae. standard■ of right, morality, domestic
life, the rules of thinking and grannar, esthetlc and so on
taste■,
front the very begln,,lna fora the behavior and reason of man and make
t' I
of every Individual ean a repreHntatlve of a certain mode of llfe and
level of culture and psychology. "If by hla nature man1 la a social
•·, - 5 -
i.Jex·?:--tMt.i ; t to'·, t±: r · • : - · 1 ½ a 111 , ·t1i tw: w.. ., · t • 0 ft tr bl l I' . 'c··· i ..... g . . · nr · 2t •
' belq,· then It foll•• that onlJ· In aocle~y can he develop hi• true
nature, and the atrangth of hh nature auat not be judged by the
atrength of holated. lndlvlduala, but by the strength of all of
.,_ · aoclety" (Karl Marx and Friedrich !nae la, Sochlnenlya (Works], Vol 2,
p 146). ·
In opposition to lndlvlduallatlc teaching• In which the Individual
aan and hta unlqueneaa cme to the fore aa the prlt110rdtal given fact,
aa an Identity encloaed tn ltaelf, Marxl• regard• man as something
which has been conditioned by aocial relattonahlp1: every 1111n bear•
all htator, vlth hluelf. The underatandlng of man as a social beln&
· la deeply baaed by Marx, who wrote that "the essence of ean la not
an abatract proper to an laolated individual In tt• actuality It
la the totality of all aoclal-relatlonshlpa•• (Karl Marx and Friedrich
!ngela, Sochlnenlya [Works], Vol 3, p 3). Thia thesis has enormous
methodological stgntflcance, giving bearings for consideration of •n
as a socially determined creature, not as an Isolated monad.
In crtttctzlng the concepts that man ts some Isolated and
self-enclosed 1110nad Karl Marx emphasized that tndtvtduals "create
each other" both physt'cally and aptrltually and the development of
the tndtvtdual ta stipulated by the develop111ent of all the other In•
dtvtduah wt th vh0111 he h In direct or Indirect connuntcatlon • . The
. perception by man,of himself as himself ls alway• mediated by his attl•
tudes toward other people. "In some respects man ls reminiscent of .· .·
a coaaodtty. Since he ls born without a mirror tn his hands and not
aa a Flchtean phllr1opher ("I am I"), man first l?oks at himself,•• In a I
mirror, only In another mane Only by relating to the man Paul as to one
like himself does the man Peter begin to relate to himself as to a man"
~
(lCarl Marx, lCapltal [Capital], Vol 1, p 59)o /
Man la Included In every aspect In the context of connunlcatlon
with society, even when he remains alone with himself. Even, wrote Marx,
"when I aa engaged tn scientific and like activity -- acitlvlty that
only In rare cases I can perform in direct Intercourse with others•·
.even then I am engaged in ioctal activity because I• acting as a man.
A• a social product I am not only given material for my own activity -
even the language 1 tself in which the thinker work• •· but also my own
existence 1s a social activity; and t.herefore even that which I do of my
own person I do of myself for society, acknowledging myself a social
being" (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, h rannikh prolzvedenly [Fr0111
the Early Work•], Moscow 1956, p 590). ·
Emphasis on the social nature of man does not mean ignoring his
biological aide •• either of the general or of the Individual charac
teristics of hi• bodily orpnizatton. Every individual ta a unique
individuality In the whole make-up of hla phyaic,l and spiritual
trait• and at the,_... ti1111 he bear• In himself~ universal human prln•
clple, a certain g,nerlc essence. He makes ht• ,,ppearance as a personality
• 6 •
--
vh!n heattatM •elf-conaclouane. .. undentandlng of hl• •octal relattona,
and Interpretation of hl■Hlf aa a subject of hl•torlc creation.. •
Man•anaturallndlvldual characterl•tlc• alao participate In the
proce•• of fonilng hl•• but they remain, a• It were, neutral In re•pect
to the •ubatance of activity. The mental capacltle• and properties of
un are fotw!td during hi• life In •oclety and are determined by concrete
social condition•. Man ral••• hl••elf to the level of personality by
the force of the historic proceH, paHlng through the Immense history
of hla development, beginning with the gregarious state, to the sur1111lt
of IIIOdem culture. Under the conditions of life of the generic collec
tive the lndtvldual man still does not become Independent with respect
to the community. Personal Interests ■till have not been segregated
fr0111 the Interest• of the collective, and the personality, as such, ls
still absent. During •octal dlfferentlatlon. and the development of
personal rlghta and duties the lndlvldual more and more dlstlngutshea.
himself frca the collective a~d beconles a personality.
The naturalistic treatment of man and his intellect, a treatment
powerle•• to explain hl• constructive-creative activity, 1• overcome by
the theal• that the key to the understanding of man and of hi• intellect
la in the hands of aoclety which regenerates Itself through dally objectlve
0
practical activity that tranaforms both the extemal world and man himself.
The tran,fomlng action of the objective •• that ls, the historical, not
the organic -- reality also embraces the higher cognitive processes,
thinking, and the.Initial aense forms, and the realm of emotion and wlllo
In• word, all the Pleme~ts of the structure of consciousness ln which
· the principal role is played not only by the scientific. but also by
the artistic method of reproducing reality. And In the artistic method
of doing this cognition has coalesced with the funct-ion of creation
and of spiritual-moral communication. Artistic cognition and cre-
ation are, ln the word• of Goethe. not for the world outside of man.
but for the world which ts ln confol'ftllty with man. ·
Cognition In a certain sense Is perception not only of ••-!:-a·ound
lng reality, but also of one's own relationship to this reality, and
not merely one's own relationship to this reality, but also of the slg•
nlflcance of what la being done for •oclety as a •mole. Since man••
activity ha• some particular •octal significance. the consciousness
of this ts characterized above all by the degree to which man ts capable
of realizing the social con•equencea of his activity. The greater the
place occupied by manifestations of social duty In the motive• of human
activity, the higher the level of realization Is.
The capacity of man for thlnklns la not directly Included ln the
very structure of the brain; It Is formed by the logic of objective
practical activity through uniting with historically amassed culture,
through education and Instruction, and through objective activity
maklns use of procedures and meana created by society. The richness of
• 7 •