Physical limits of natural computation as the biological constraints of morphogenesis, evolution, and consciousness: On the 100th anniversary of Efim Liberman (1925–2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efim Liberman (1925-2011) introduced in 1972 the idea of natural computation realized internally by living systems. He considered the physical principles employed by living systems as essential constraints that limit the computational process occurring in the course of adaptation, morphogenesis, and neural activity. The most general limits determined by the physical fundamental constants are universal for all nature. However, the more specific constraints are intrinsic to each biological system and can be overcome in the course of the evolutionary process. We discuss the roles of biological macromolecules, particularly the cytoskeleton, in shaping the actualization patterns formed in the internal measurement process occurring in living systems. Cytoskeletal rearrangements determine cellular, morphogenetic, and perceptive transformations in living systems and participate in the combinatorial genetic events that lead to evolutionary transformations. The operation of neurons is based on the transmission of signals via the cytoskeleton, where the digital output is generated that can be decoded through a reflexive action of the perceiving agent. It is concluded that the principles of natural computation formulated by Liberman represent the most fundamental feature of living beings and form the basis for the general theory of biological systems, with essential consequences for understanding metabolic closure, morphogenesis, evolution, and consciousness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".