If any real "free will" exists, is at the level of "I" of a system, routine decision making, which comes into play. Before delving into the technical aspects of this problem, first try to exchange ideas about what is meant by "free will." Although intuitively we "know" what "free will" is, as we know what consciousness is very difficult to define in words. We will try to build an ontology "free will" reciting their characteristics and by drawing the boundaries of the concept of the notions of what is not.
I followed a very interesting debate on the issue of free will and if necessary in the IA, not repeat or summarize here, but a series of eye-catching concepts that I will use in this trial. Not pretend to have arrived with the concepts I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I think I can add some interesting concepts to the discussion arising from the "Bacterial Wisdom" Ben Jacob, "Global Brain" and "societies" of "minds." I will also propose the addition of a functional mimic artificial "free will" in a WebMind as AWWWARENet (Artificial World Wide Web of net resource awareness engine.)
A number of concepts stood out above the noise of the previous discussion, I will mention here the characteristics (and not the features) of the "ontology of free will":
"Choice, void, chance, unpredictability, (no) the establishment, chaotic (non) causality and evolution."
Indeed, by a "will" or making routine decisions to be "free", should be able to replace the possible decisions that are "causality" determined. " In Goertzel WebMind the power to discriminate is the routine AttentionBroker). In AWWWARENet, AttentionBroker presents its findings, what course of action should be taken as the most rational, as having the highest probability of success, the III (identity, initiative and enthusiasm generated routine). To the extent that the system has an "undo" function, the system seems to be endowed with a power to "choose" to an outside observer of the system.
The need for faculty to choose at random, arises when the AttentionBroker present the III-routine with more than one option that is equally likely, the options with identical priorities.
The question becomes more poignant when, due to lack of resources or time constraints not all options resources can be performed simultaneously or evil are mutually exclusive, ie some must be sacrificed at the expense of others.
Which one to choose if they have all the numerical results also preferable from a resultant vector of the pros and cons and the only differences are at a level of quality?
Needless to say, that the amount of advantage-disadvantage includes preferential allocation of weighing the long-term benefits over short-term disadvantages.
A rational / causal to the system will try to maximize the chances of survival of the system in the long term, short term repairable damage can be tolerated as a temporary sacrifice.
When we look at the example we have observed only "free will", ie ourselves (at least we think we are endowed with power - and we have an example of free will, if you want to try to simulate or imitate in an artificial environment), in fact sometimes replace rational thinking, ensuring a safe outcome and have a prima facie irrational intuitive decisions based on a "gut feeling." Often our animal instincts and / or emotions are able to override a potential well reflects the decision on the basis of a summary of the pros and cons. Goertzel believes that these obstacles as natural human superintelligence in his book "The hidden pattern."
If such decisions replace examples of "true free will or are simply the result of the sum in a meta-level, for example, when a result of" Emotome "is compared with a score of" Cognotome? If the latter is the case, its decision will certainly not qualify as "free will" but are the result of another algorithm. However, programmed with sufficient control over the "tips" that are derived from the "Emotome" a super-artificial intelligence system that is aware of the routines of "Emotome" and "Cognotome, the system will face to situations where you have to choose between equally good (or bad) strategies.
In these cases the system can be programmed to select one at random. But as a routine random harvest in fact can not be equated with "true free will."
When we say we intuitively choose the solution that "feels better", perhaps unconsciously, we are conducting a search through an area of similar known solutions and choose the one with the highest degree of similarity between the parameters of the situation in or solution space that has the shortest path to a successful outcome. Could be the development of a heuristic. An artificial intelligence system can be programmed so, but again this type of algorithm can not be regarded as genuine free will.
In reality, our supposed "free will" is much more limited than it might, a priori, I think. Tricks played by the so-called "environmentalists" have shown that unconsciously recorded tracks from the latest peripheral perception to guide decisions for us, which we believe is a genuine free will decisions be based.
By eliminating all the descriptions are not the product of free will true, we can arrive at a description of free will. We will continue with the exercise of reflection to a pattern of land of the free will of a number of examples.
Let's start with an extreme example of the "choice" should not be influenced by "peripheral perceptions." In the movie "Sophie's Choice" is a scene in which Sophie (played by Meryl Streep) is forced to choose one of their children, the other will be killed. Not lead to the choice of the two dead children. A father who loves his children equally and refrains from favoritism could have the following thoughts:
1. It is better if one of my children that nothing survives.
2. As these sadistic monsters to kill people anyway, there is no good reason to give in to this lack of choice as most likely to kill children in the end anyway.
3. If you choose one of them, I can buy some time for one of them creates an opportunity to escape and survive.
4. If you choose one of them to commit a sin, is immoral to take such a decision imposed by blackmail; One should never give in to that, I prefer to secure my ass in the world after.
5. Or choose one of them to commit a sin, is immoral to condemn both the death.
6. I choose the most helpless / which has the best chance of survival.
Thoughts 1.3 and 6 belong to the realm of necessity (N) and energy (E) and the target for the "least harm" results. Thoughts 2.4 and 5 belong to the realm of morality (M). Is the choice that was made again the result of the sum of a vector of N, S and M? It is one of the power of choice predestined by the resultant idiosyncratic N, E, the vector M?
Is the "instinct" and "feel" a way to align their decision as possible to its N, E, the vector M or is there a way out of the design considerations based on algorithmic computation?
Do not we sometimes make decisions that are not rational or even counterintuitive, the reason being stubborn? It is a "what the heck, I'll just pick up a" not to the performance of a pure random selection algorithm?
Scientists, artists, musicians and other creative people sometimes have breakthrough ideas, moments of pure happiness, where you simply "see" the solution to a complex problem, he soon "inspiration" overrides the ways paradigmatic and fixed action patterns of the lymph baseline.
Completely original ideas from such moments of happiness, especially when combined with an election can get closer, which intuitively assume that it is "free will."
Another example of apparent free choice is based is as deliberately and consciously do the opposite: a lot like going against the very moral, indulging in this or that bad habit, even if our Cognotome Emotome and tell us otherwise: The phrase often heard then "Meat is" weak. When this is related to the possibilities of such sexual relations outside of marriage, for many people the primary strength of our animal instincts can not be underestimated. The animal part of the brain then imposes a kind of artificial need in making routine decisions, if the mating signal has been given by an attractive candidate of the opposite sex.
Only a combination of energy (E) and morality (M) (for example, do not want to hurt my current partner and my children and / or my religion considers this as a sin, etc) can then override those instincts. Here again the sum of both instinctive tendencies and the results of the Emotome? Cognotome then determine what action to take. Not so free after all?
A third example of the apparent free will and choice with an unpredictable outcome can be found in the field of "global brain" as the bacterial colonies, beehives and anthills. A priori, if sufficient resources the system is developed by maintaining conservative habits, ie, maintaining the paradigm.
Individuals in the "Global Brain", which have the role of "enforcement compliance" Ben Jacob and "inner judge" will ensure that the system can thrive as long as the parameters of the status quo applies. However, once resources become scarce need will arise to investigate various strategies to ensure the chances of survival of the species. The individuals in the colony that has the role of "generators of diversity" is essential to test alternative strategies. These generators of diversity must be able to boldly go where no one had gone before, but must be bold and happily dive into the abyss of the unknown.
It is critical that these people are endowed with a wealth of free will, and who must make decisions that go against common sense. Be exposed to great danger and have a great chance of endangering its own survival in the sacrifice for the greater good. Generators of diversity should almost have a borderline personality: they have to make foolish decisions, random or against the intuitive sense. Considering that the vast majority of the sources of diversity (ie mutants in an evolving system) are unsuccessful, some of them are the species and bring new opportunity to survive, a way of exploiting new resources or new resources all-together selection of the most promising strategy is the Gospel that "Whoever has will be given, who has not, it will be removed." The result of sending out multiple sentries parallel generation of diversity and pioneering is unpredictable.
The Global Brain as a whole, if successful in the final then seems to have chosen and invented a solution, which to an observer from the outside seems to derive from a happy thought, a free choice really smart, intuitive, totally original.
What the outside observer does not know at first sight this observation is that the "Global Brain" has been massively investigated a large number of solutions for the vast majority of which have failed. The result seems to be free will, but is the result of a competition, a struggle to detect the most promising strategy. Perhaps our brains work similarly, so that when we seek a solution to a problem, subconsciously launched a multitude of strategies in parallel. These strategies to compete and only the most promising strategy is promoted to the level of consciousness, to overcome a certain threshold, having been elected to the rise in a system similar images.
Perhaps this is the best way to mimic free will in a system of artificial intelligence: to allow multiple different strategies to evolve in parallel in a simulation and / or "real" environment and have the "intergroup tournament strategy is to establish what the most successful. Vote up or down during the showing of the tournament between the groups is then carried out by individuals online and / or artificial life agents, which can be regarded as "levers of change of resources" Ben Jacob.
So "apparent free will" can emerge from what a lot of wrong decisions, without success, and maintenance strategies and the few that are promising success.
The "making mistakes" is both inherent and indispensable to this system because it relies on massive parallel poll: The system will learn more from their mistakes and pruning strategies are not promising. Do not venture into new directions. Thus, through this survey massively parallel simulation environments, the "Global Brain" builds its own heuristics.
Similarly in our lives there is nothing wrong with making mistakes, as long as we learn from that. It is my experience that making mistakes is most instructive and has a lasting impact that courses of action that occurred to me to perform properly, without knowing why. Therefore this world, where you can make mistakes (a religious person using the term "sin") is actually the best of possible worlds in terms of Voltaire "Candide", allowing us to consciously evolve.
So for me the answer to the question "What is free will and is necessary for AI" is the following (and do not intend to come to this definition for myself, I combined some concepts of the above discussion and added element of the thesis of Ben Jacob):
Free will can be characterized by a decision process that overrides rational and emotional or instinctive heuristics and establishes a new heuristic algorithm based on the seven steps of intelligence, every time the system is under resource constraints and has to deal with an option at least some knowledge at your disposal. The algorithm that involves the elements of "Bacterial Wisdom" Ben Jacob as follows:
Probe generation of a variety of antithesis, as a result of inadequate stimulation of the thesis status quo (eg, lack of resources), the extraction of patterns, the emergence of multiple alternative strategies, tournaments and distinction between groups resulting survey either in niching or preferably symbiosis.
The most promising strategies in the outcome of the ideal symbiosis, a unification of functions to which the system will work. It will resonate with their new environment and thus adapt to it.
As for the AI need a WebMind casu quo, we can say that if the system is under pressure due to the scarcity of resources is essential that there be a way to venture into the unknown to find new resources.
However, the whole system can not venture into the unknown, making a great leap, it is simply too risky. A look WebMind the elimination of free will is therefore the ideal is a society-of-mind, where different individuals have been assigned the functions of the enforcement of conformity, domestic judges, shift levers generating resources and diversity, so that the whole system can safely sacrifice diversity on a large scale generators, without compromising the integrity of the whole, in order to find promising new strategies, heuristics and / or resources. Among the generators of diversity that can be expected that different groups or clusters each with a different degree of freedom to explore: there can be a gradual increase rather conservative combinations of existing strategies that a generator of diversity may nominate up to absurd wild combinations of unrelated strategies. Conservative generators diversity still seek some degree of similarities between existing strategies and combine parts of these linearly when more freedom is allowed to non-linear combinations may be used and freer systems can access random combinations on the edge of absurdity. Generators of diversity algorithm are required, but success will be seen by the outside world as having had a lot of free will.
Evolution of organisms based colony aggregates of cells within an organism works similarly: thinking about the process of hypermutation of the immune system.
Just as we as humans can perform the functions of the different types of individuals in a society-of-mind. The universe is investigating new solutions in order to propagate their seven-step algorithm and intelligence of us to achieve that goal. Hence, to conclude that we live in a simulation is then almost mere semantics.
The seven-step algorithm of intelligence is a double dialectical process: The thesis (1), antithesis (2), pattern-abstraction (3) that leads to the emergence (4). The opposition (antithesis regard to the thesis) comes creativity (the abstraction of patterns) resulting in the redefinition (emergency).
Free will, at least one apparent way that is indispensable in this system to create the generators of diversity. Whereas enforcement compliance and internal judges maintain the status quo are endowed with very little or no choice (and therefore maintain a form of inertia of the system), the levers of resources and generating further diversity, they include a large free will in order to ensure leaps into the unknown. Absurd and unpredictable mutations that are carried out on a result of large scale intelligent decisions by pruning away of errors through survival of the fittest protocol.
The free will of the generators of extreme diversity is then actually a form of absurd counter-intuitive, a limit break in the abyss of the unknown just-for-lack-of-it. Generators of diversity must be endowed with a certain amount of "insanity" to ensure the health of the whole system, which are a part.
Thus we can conclude that the free will of the power to orchestrate such a quasi-conscious WebMind is limited to the generation of submodules such as small size copies of itself equipped with fewer resources, which submodules perform the thankless task of investigating the unknown, while another part of the system is controlled and managed by the executors of the compliance and internal judges as agents of Life. Note that the power to generate apparent free will of its submodules is not necessarily a true free will of the highest meta-levels as well: those who are still governed by a weight and sum algorithms and choosing the best option if necessary use random choice when the results are identical. Because selecting the best solution to the submodules of the system as a whole shows "apparent free will", but has no real power WebMind such.
A number of concepts stood out above the noise of the previous discussion, I will mention here the characteristics (and not the features) of the "ontology of free will":
"Choice, void, chance, unpredictability, (no) the establishment, chaotic (non) causality and evolution."
Indeed, by a "will" or making routine decisions to be "free", should be able to replace the possible decisions that are "causality" determined. " In Goertzel WebMind the power to discriminate is the routine AttentionBroker). In AWWWARENet, AttentionBroker presents its findings, what course of action should be taken as the most rational, as having the highest probability of success, the III (identity, initiative and enthusiasm generated routine). To the extent that the system has an "undo" function, the system seems to be endowed with a power to "choose" to an outside observer of the system.
The need for faculty to choose at random, arises when the AttentionBroker present the III-routine with more than one option that is equally likely, the options with identical priorities.
The question becomes more poignant when, due to lack of resources or time constraints not all options resources can be performed simultaneously or evil are mutually exclusive, ie some must be sacrificed at the expense of others.
Which one to choose if they have all the numerical results also preferable from a resultant vector of the pros and cons and the only differences are at a level of quality?
Needless to say, that the amount of advantage-disadvantage includes preferential allocation of weighing the long-term benefits over short-term disadvantages.
A rational / causal to the system will try to maximize the chances of survival of the system in the long term, short term repairable damage can be tolerated as a temporary sacrifice.
When we look at the example we have observed only "free will", ie ourselves (at least we think we are endowed with power - and we have an example of free will, if you want to try to simulate or imitate in an artificial environment), in fact sometimes replace rational thinking, ensuring a safe outcome and have a prima facie irrational intuitive decisions based on a "gut feeling." Often our animal instincts and / or emotions are able to override a potential well reflects the decision on the basis of a summary of the pros and cons. Goertzel believes that these obstacles as natural human superintelligence in his book "The hidden pattern."
If such decisions replace examples of "true free will or are simply the result of the sum in a meta-level, for example, when a result of" Emotome "is compared with a score of" Cognotome? If the latter is the case, its decision will certainly not qualify as "free will" but are the result of another algorithm. However, programmed with sufficient control over the "tips" that are derived from the "Emotome" a super-artificial intelligence system that is aware of the routines of "Emotome" and "Cognotome, the system will face to situations where you have to choose between equally good (or bad) strategies.
In these cases the system can be programmed to select one at random. But as a routine random harvest in fact can not be equated with "true free will."
When we say we intuitively choose the solution that "feels better", perhaps unconsciously, we are conducting a search through an area of similar known solutions and choose the one with the highest degree of similarity between the parameters of the situation in or solution space that has the shortest path to a successful outcome. Could be the development of a heuristic. An artificial intelligence system can be programmed so, but again this type of algorithm can not be regarded as genuine free will.
In reality, our supposed "free will" is much more limited than it might, a priori, I think. Tricks played by the so-called "environmentalists" have shown that unconsciously recorded tracks from the latest peripheral perception to guide decisions for us, which we believe is a genuine free will decisions be based.
By eliminating all the descriptions are not the product of free will true, we can arrive at a description of free will. We will continue with the exercise of reflection to a pattern of land of the free will of a number of examples.
Let's start with an extreme example of the "choice" should not be influenced by "peripheral perceptions." In the movie "Sophie's Choice" is a scene in which Sophie (played by Meryl Streep) is forced to choose one of their children, the other will be killed. Not lead to the choice of the two dead children. A father who loves his children equally and refrains from favoritism could have the following thoughts:
1. It is better if one of my children that nothing survives.
2. As these sadistic monsters to kill people anyway, there is no good reason to give in to this lack of choice as most likely to kill children in the end anyway.
3. If you choose one of them, I can buy some time for one of them creates an opportunity to escape and survive.
4. If you choose one of them to commit a sin, is immoral to take such a decision imposed by blackmail; One should never give in to that, I prefer to secure my ass in the world after.
5. Or choose one of them to commit a sin, is immoral to condemn both the death.
6. I choose the most helpless / which has the best chance of survival.
Thoughts 1.3 and 6 belong to the realm of necessity (N) and energy (E) and the target for the "least harm" results. Thoughts 2.4 and 5 belong to the realm of morality (M). Is the choice that was made again the result of the sum of a vector of N, S and M? It is one of the power of choice predestined by the resultant idiosyncratic N, E, the vector M?
Is the "instinct" and "feel" a way to align their decision as possible to its N, E, the vector M or is there a way out of the design considerations based on algorithmic computation?
Do not we sometimes make decisions that are not rational or even counterintuitive, the reason being stubborn? It is a "what the heck, I'll just pick up a" not to the performance of a pure random selection algorithm?
Scientists, artists, musicians and other creative people sometimes have breakthrough ideas, moments of pure happiness, where you simply "see" the solution to a complex problem, he soon "inspiration" overrides the ways paradigmatic and fixed action patterns of the lymph baseline.
Completely original ideas from such moments of happiness, especially when combined with an election can get closer, which intuitively assume that it is "free will."
Another example of apparent free choice is based is as deliberately and consciously do the opposite: a lot like going against the very moral, indulging in this or that bad habit, even if our Cognotome Emotome and tell us otherwise: The phrase often heard then "Meat is" weak. When this is related to the possibilities of such sexual relations outside of marriage, for many people the primary strength of our animal instincts can not be underestimated. The animal part of the brain then imposes a kind of artificial need in making routine decisions, if the mating signal has been given by an attractive candidate of the opposite sex.
Only a combination of energy (E) and morality (M) (for example, do not want to hurt my current partner and my children and / or my religion considers this as a sin, etc) can then override those instincts. Here again the sum of both instinctive tendencies and the results of the Emotome? Cognotome then determine what action to take. Not so free after all?
A third example of the apparent free will and choice with an unpredictable outcome can be found in the field of "global brain" as the bacterial colonies, beehives and anthills. A priori, if sufficient resources the system is developed by maintaining conservative habits, ie, maintaining the paradigm.
Individuals in the "Global Brain", which have the role of "enforcement compliance" Ben Jacob and "inner judge" will ensure that the system can thrive as long as the parameters of the status quo applies. However, once resources become scarce need will arise to investigate various strategies to ensure the chances of survival of the species. The individuals in the colony that has the role of "generators of diversity" is essential to test alternative strategies. These generators of diversity must be able to boldly go where no one had gone before, but must be bold and happily dive into the abyss of the unknown.
It is critical that these people are endowed with a wealth of free will, and who must make decisions that go against common sense. Be exposed to great danger and have a great chance of endangering its own survival in the sacrifice for the greater good. Generators of diversity should almost have a borderline personality: they have to make foolish decisions, random or against the intuitive sense. Considering that the vast majority of the sources of diversity (ie mutants in an evolving system) are unsuccessful, some of them are the species and bring new opportunity to survive, a way of exploiting new resources or new resources all-together selection of the most promising strategy is the Gospel that "Whoever has will be given, who has not, it will be removed." The result of sending out multiple sentries parallel generation of diversity and pioneering is unpredictable.
The Global Brain as a whole, if successful in the final then seems to have chosen and invented a solution, which to an observer from the outside seems to derive from a happy thought, a free choice really smart, intuitive, totally original.
What the outside observer does not know at first sight this observation is that the "Global Brain" has been massively investigated a large number of solutions for the vast majority of which have failed. The result seems to be free will, but is the result of a competition, a struggle to detect the most promising strategy. Perhaps our brains work similarly, so that when we seek a solution to a problem, subconsciously launched a multitude of strategies in parallel. These strategies to compete and only the most promising strategy is promoted to the level of consciousness, to overcome a certain threshold, having been elected to the rise in a system similar images.
Perhaps this is the best way to mimic free will in a system of artificial intelligence: to allow multiple different strategies to evolve in parallel in a simulation and / or "real" environment and have the "intergroup tournament strategy is to establish what the most successful. Vote up or down during the showing of the tournament between the groups is then carried out by individuals online and / or artificial life agents, which can be regarded as "levers of change of resources" Ben Jacob.
So "apparent free will" can emerge from what a lot of wrong decisions, without success, and maintenance strategies and the few that are promising success.
The "making mistakes" is both inherent and indispensable to this system because it relies on massive parallel poll: The system will learn more from their mistakes and pruning strategies are not promising. Do not venture into new directions. Thus, through this survey massively parallel simulation environments, the "Global Brain" builds its own heuristics.
Similarly in our lives there is nothing wrong with making mistakes, as long as we learn from that. It is my experience that making mistakes is most instructive and has a lasting impact that courses of action that occurred to me to perform properly, without knowing why. Therefore this world, where you can make mistakes (a religious person using the term "sin") is actually the best of possible worlds in terms of Voltaire "Candide", allowing us to consciously evolve.
So for me the answer to the question "What is free will and is necessary for AI" is the following (and do not intend to come to this definition for myself, I combined some concepts of the above discussion and added element of the thesis of Ben Jacob):
Free will can be characterized by a decision process that overrides rational and emotional or instinctive heuristics and establishes a new heuristic algorithm based on the seven steps of intelligence, every time the system is under resource constraints and has to deal with an option at least some knowledge at your disposal. The algorithm that involves the elements of "Bacterial Wisdom" Ben Jacob as follows:
Probe generation of a variety of antithesis, as a result of inadequate stimulation of the thesis status quo (eg, lack of resources), the extraction of patterns, the emergence of multiple alternative strategies, tournaments and distinction between groups resulting survey either in niching or preferably symbiosis.
The most promising strategies in the outcome of the ideal symbiosis, a unification of functions to which the system will work. It will resonate with their new environment and thus adapt to it.
As for the AI need a WebMind casu quo, we can say that if the system is under pressure due to the scarcity of resources is essential that there be a way to venture into the unknown to find new resources.
However, the whole system can not venture into the unknown, making a great leap, it is simply too risky. A look WebMind the elimination of free will is therefore the ideal is a society-of-mind, where different individuals have been assigned the functions of the enforcement of conformity, domestic judges, shift levers generating resources and diversity, so that the whole system can safely sacrifice diversity on a large scale generators, without compromising the integrity of the whole, in order to find promising new strategies, heuristics and / or resources. Among the generators of diversity that can be expected that different groups or clusters each with a different degree of freedom to explore: there can be a gradual increase rather conservative combinations of existing strategies that a generator of diversity may nominate up to absurd wild combinations of unrelated strategies. Conservative generators diversity still seek some degree of similarities between existing strategies and combine parts of these linearly when more freedom is allowed to non-linear combinations may be used and freer systems can access random combinations on the edge of absurdity. Generators of diversity algorithm are required, but success will be seen by the outside world as having had a lot of free will.
Evolution of organisms based colony aggregates of cells within an organism works similarly: thinking about the process of hypermutation of the immune system.
Just as we as humans can perform the functions of the different types of individuals in a society-of-mind. The universe is investigating new solutions in order to propagate their seven-step algorithm and intelligence of us to achieve that goal. Hence, to conclude that we live in a simulation is then almost mere semantics.
The seven-step algorithm of intelligence is a double dialectical process: The thesis (1), antithesis (2), pattern-abstraction (3) that leads to the emergence (4). The opposition (antithesis regard to the thesis) comes creativity (the abstraction of patterns) resulting in the redefinition (emergency).
Free will, at least one apparent way that is indispensable in this system to create the generators of diversity. Whereas enforcement compliance and internal judges maintain the status quo are endowed with very little or no choice (and therefore maintain a form of inertia of the system), the levers of resources and generating further diversity, they include a large free will in order to ensure leaps into the unknown. Absurd and unpredictable mutations that are carried out on a result of large scale intelligent decisions by pruning away of errors through survival of the fittest protocol.
The free will of the generators of extreme diversity is then actually a form of absurd counter-intuitive, a limit break in the abyss of the unknown just-for-lack-of-it. Generators of diversity must be endowed with a certain amount of "insanity" to ensure the health of the whole system, which are a part.
