home

System processes

• All functions performed by the QNX OS, with the exception of kernel functions, are implemented by standard processes. A typical QNX system configuration has the following system processes:
• process administrator (Proc), · administrator file system
• (Fsys),
• · device administrator (Dev),

· network administrator (Net).

System and user processes

System processes are practically no different from any user process: they do not have a special or hidden interface that is inaccessible to the user process. It is this architecture that gives the QNX system unlimited expandability. Since most QNX functions are performed by standard system processes, it is not at all difficult to extend the OS: just write and include in the system a program that implements new feature

OS. Indeed, the line between OS and application programs

very conditional. The only fundamental difference between system processes and application processes is that system processes manage system resources, providing them to application processes.

Let's say you wrote a database server. How should this program be classified? The database server must perform functions similar to those of the File System Administrator, which receives requests (messages) to open files and read or write data. Although queries to the database server may be more complex, in both cases a set of primitives is formed (via messages), resulting in access to system resource . In both cases we are talking about processes that can be written end user

and be carried out as needed. Thus, a database server can be viewed as a system process in one case and an application process in another. In fact there is no difference. It is important to note that in the QNX system, such processes are enabled without any modifications to other OS components.

Submissions

So, the first most important advantage and feature that distinguishes TFS from other variants of the systems approach is the introduction of the idea of ​​the result of an action into the conceptual scheme. Thus, TFS, firstly, included an isomorphic system-forming factor in the conceptual apparatus of the systems approach and, secondly, radically changed the understanding of the determination of behavior.

It should be noted that when a certain theory has already been clearly formulated, a retrospective analysis of the literature may reveal statements that anticipated any of its set of provisions. This is the situation with TFS. Thus, J. Dewey noted at the end of the last century that “action is determined not by previous events, but by the required result.” In the 20s In the 20th century, A. A. Ukhtomsky put forward the concept of a “moving functional organ,” which meant any combination of forces leading to a certain result. Nevertheless, we find a holistic system of ideas, justified not only theoretically, but also by the richest experimental material, precisely in TFS. Its integrity and consistency lies in the fact that the idea of ​​activity and purposefulness is not simply included in TPS along with other provisions, but actually determines the main content, theoretical and methodological apparatus of the theory. This idea defines both approaches to the analysis of specific mechanisms for achieving behavioral results, operating at the level of the whole organism, and an understanding of the organization of the activity of an individual neuron (see paragraph 3). How does TFS answer the question about the mechanisms that ensure the integration of elements into a system and the achievement of its result? What provisions of the reflex theory made P.K. Anokhin (a student of I.P. Pavlov) reject the logic of the consistent development of systemic ideas, which took TFS beyond the “framework of reflex” [Sudakov, 1996]?

As the key provisions of the reflex theory, P.K. Anokhin identified the following: a) the exclusivity of the trigger stimulus as a factor determining the action that is its cause; b) completion of a behavioral act with a reflex action, response, and c) forward progression of excitation along a reflex arc. All these provisions are rejected when considering behavior from the perspective of TPS [Anokhin, 1978].

The presence of a trigger stimulus is not sufficient for the occurrence of adequate behavior. It arises: a) after training, i.e., in the presence of appropriate memory material; b) in the presence of appropriate motivation and c) in the appropriate environment. These components were, of course, considered by other authors, but only as modulators or conditions under which a given stimulus causes a given reaction associated with it. P.K. Anokhin noted that when the same stimulus appears and conditions change, the animal can achieve the result of behavior in the most different ways, never associated with this stimulus. For example, instead of approaching the feeder, it can swim to it if water suddenly becomes an obstacle.

According to TFS, the integration of all these components is carried out within the framework of a special systemic mechanism of afferent synthesis, during which, based on motivation, taking into account the situation and past experience, conditions are created for eliminating excess degrees of freedom - making decisions about what, how and when to do so that obtain a useful adaptive result. Decision making ends with the formation of an acceptor of action results, which is an apparatus for predicting the parameters of future results: stage and final, and comparing them with the parameters of the results actually obtained during the implementation of the action program. When compared with the parameters of the obtained stage results, the compliance of the progress of the program with the planned one is revealed (for more details, see [Batuev, 1978; Pashina, Shvyrkov, 1978]) when compared with the final parameters - the correspondence of the achieved relationship between the organism and the environment with the one for which the system was formed. These system mechanisms constitute the operational architectonics of any functional system(Fig. 14.1). Their introduction into the conceptual scheme is the second most important advantage and feature that distinguishes TFS from other options for the systems approach.

Rice. 14.1. Functional system and behavioral continuum

Operational architectonics of a functional system according to P.K. Anokhin (top). For information on the systemic mechanisms that make up the operational architectonics, see paragraph 2. The arrows from “dominant motivation” to “memory” demonstrate that the nature of the information retrieved from memory is determined by the dominant motivation. The diagram also illustrates the idea that the acceptor of action results contains models of stage results along with the final result and that the model of the latter is represented not by a single characteristic, but by a set of parameters

Behavioral continuum (bottom). Р n, Р n+1 - results of behavioral acts; p 1,2,3 - stage results; T-transformation processes (see paragraph 2). For sets of systems that ensure the implementation of successive acts of the continuum, and for the involvement in transformation processes of systems that are not involved in the implementation of acts, the replacement of which by these processes is ensured (these systems are indicated by open ovals), see paragraph 7

The formation in TPS of the idea that the integration of elementary physiological processes is carried out within the framework of specific system processes that are qualitatively different from them was of fundamental importance for the development of the psychophysiological approach to the analysis of behavior and activity, as well as system solution psychophysiological problem (see paragraph 5). The development of ideas about the qualitative specificity of integration processes was the discovery of a new type of processes in the whole organism - system processes that organize particular physiological processes, but are not reducible to the latter.

The discovery of systemic processes made it possible, in contrast to considering material-energy relations between local impact and reaction as the basis for behavior, to interpret behavior as an exchange of organization, or information, between the organism and the environment, carried out within the framework of these information processes. At the same time, the position was substantiated that the system categories of TPS describe simultaneously both the organization of the activity of the elements of the body and the connection of this activity with the organization of the external environment [Shvyrkov, 1995].

In stable conditions, for example in a laboratory experiment, the appearance of a trigger stimulus makes it possible to implement pre-launch integration, which can be characterized as the readiness of systems for future behavior, formed in the process of performing the previous one. It is directed to the future, but the stability of the situation makes the stimulus-response connection obvious. However, an analysis of neural activity in behavior clearly shows that the organization of the latter is determined by what result is achieved in a given behavior, while the stimulus only “permits” the implementation of behavior. In cases where the same stimulus in terms of physical parameters “triggers” different behavioral acts (for example, food-procuring or defensive), not only the characteristics of neuronal activity turn out to be different in these acts, but even the very set of cells involved, including in “stimulus-specific” areas of the brain (for example, in the visual cortex when a visual stimulus is presented; see [Shvyrkova, 1979; Aleksandrov, 1989]).

The second position of the reflex theory, which is rejected by TFS, is the assessment of action as the final stage of a behavioral act. From the perspective of TFS The final stage deployment of the act - comparison of the parameters predicted in the acceptor with the parameters of the actually obtained result. If the parameters correspond to the predicted ones, then the individual implements the next behavioral act; if not, then a mismatch arises in the acceptor apparatus, leading to a restructuring of programs for achieving results.

Finally, TFS rejects the proposition that excitation progresses along the reflex arc. In accordance with this position, the implementation of behavior is ensured by the activation of brain structures that are successively involved in the reaction: first, sensory structures that process sensory information, then effector structures that form excitation that activates glands, muscles, etc. However, we [Alexandrov, Shvyrkov, 1974 ], as well as the work of the laboratories of J. Olds and especially E. R. John (see in) it was shown that during the implementation of a behavioral act there is not a sequential activation of afferent and efferent structures, but a synchronous activation of neurons located in various areas of the brain . The pattern of neuron activation in these structures turns out to be general and has a general cerebral character. The components of this pattern - successive phases of activation - correspond to the sequence of deployment of the previously described system mechanisms (see [Shvyrkov, 1978, 1995]). This applies not only to brain neurons. For example, it was discovered that in the latent period of a behavioral act (see below about transformational processes), long before the start of its implementation and synchronously with the neurons of the brain, the activity of elements that are usually associated exclusively with “executive” mechanisms is rearranged: muscle units, receptors muscle spindles [Alexandrov, 1989].

Already more than thirty years ago, the critical importance of the phenomenon of synchronicity was obvious. From the standpoint of reflex theory, it was assumed that the synchrony of distant structures ensures an improvement in the conduction of excitation along the reflex arc. From the standpoint of TPS, it was concluded that this phenomenon is evidence of the synchronous involvement of elements of different anatomical localization in systemic processes. These processes are organism-wide and cannot be localized in any area of ​​the brain or in any part of the body. In different areas of the brain in behavioral acts, it is not local afferent or efferent processes that occur, but the same general cerebral systemic processes of organizing the activity of neurons into a system that is not sensory or motor, but functional. The activity of neurons in these areas does not reflect the processing of sensory information or the processes of movement regulation, but the involvement of neurons in certain phases of organization (afferent synthesis and decision making) and implementation of the system. The activity of any structure simultaneously corresponds to both certain properties of the environment and the nature of motor activity [Shvyrkov 1978; Shvyrkov, Aleksandrov, 1973].

In recent years, the phenomenon of synchronicity of activation of different areas of the brain (including the spinal cord) in behavior has been rediscovered and is being given increasing importance. Arguments are given in favor of the fact that synchrony is a characteristic of brain activity that is mandatory for the functioning of consciousness, updating memory material, organizing and implementing behavior. Since the organization and implementation of behavior occurs due to the activation of systems extracted from memory (see below), and consciousness can be considered as one of the characteristics of the systemic organization of behavior (see in), all the terms highlighted above are different aspects of the description of the systemic structure of the latter . Therefore, the above points of view of different authors are in accordance with the systemic interpretation of synchronicity that we gave earlier.

A single pattern of activations and synchronicity of the involvement of neurons in different areas of the brain in general cerebral system processes do not mean equipotentiality (equivalence) of brain structures; the contribution of these structures to ensuring behavior depends on the specifics of the projection of individual experience onto them (see paragraph 8).

12597

As a rule, most Trojans and spyware They try to hide their presence on the computer, for which they resort to various kinds of tricks, for example, they carefully hide their processes or disguise themselves as system processes. Potential "victim" Any system process can become a virus, but most often malware hide behind the mask of process svchost .

And they have their own reasons for this. The fact is that svchost is launched in several copies that are practically indistinguishable from each other, so if another svchost process appears in the Task Manager, and their number can reach several dozen, this will not cause much suspicion on the part of the user. But if they are the same, how can you tell which one is real and which one is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

It turns out that it is not so difficult, but before we begin to identify them, let me say a few words about the svchost process itself. As can be seen from its full name Generic Host Process for Win32 Services , he is responsible for the operation of services and services, both system and third-party ones that use dynamic libraries DLL, which in turn constitute a significant part Windows files and application programs.

This process is so important that if the file will be damaged, Windows will not be able to work normally. There are at least four instances of the svchost process on a running system, but there may be many more. The need for such duplication is explained by the number of services served by the process, as well as the need to ensure system stability.

So how do you know if svchost is real? The first criterion for the authenticity of a file is its location. Its legal habitat is the following folders:

C:/WINDOWS/system32
C:/Windows/SysWOW64
C:/WINDOWSPrefetch
C:WINDOWS/ServicePackFiles/i386
C:/WINDOWS/winsxs/ *

Note: star at the end of the road C:/WINDOWS/winsxs indicates that in the folder winsxs there may be another directory. Typically, it has a long name from a set of characters, for example, amd64_3ware.inf.resources_31bf3856ad364e35_6.3.9600.16384_ru-ru_7f622cb60fd30b1c . As an exception to the rule, the file may be located in the anti-spyware program directory Malwarebytes Anti-Malware.

If it is found in some other folder, especially in the root Windows or in "Users", then most likely you are dealing with a masking virus. You can check the file location from Task Manager by right-clicking on the process and selecting the option from the menu or using third party utilities like Process Explorer. Using third party file managers, you can also search for all files by mask.

The latter method is not so reliable, since a virus that imitates the svchost process can use a more cunning method of disguise. So, in the file name one of the Latin letters can be replaced with a Cyrillic one. Externally, such a file will be no different from the real one., moreover, it can be located in the same directory as "correct". However, verifying its authenticity is not difficult. It is enough to compare the character codes of the file name using the character table Unicode. Sometimes an extra letter is added to the name of the svchost file, or vice versa, it is skipped. An inattentive user may not notice the difference between, say, and svhost.exe .

However, you should not rush to remove suspicious svchost right away. To begin with, it would be a good idea to check it on a multi-antivirus service like VirusTotal and if suspicious file turns out to be a fake, although one of antivirus programs will give a positive result. We delete a malicious file masquerading as svchost using Dr.Web LiveDisk or utilities AVZ. If you use AVZ, you will also need a special script, which you can download from the link below.

As the key provisions of the reflex theory of P.K. Anokhin highlighted the following:

1. the exclusivity of the trigger stimulus as a factor determining the action that is its cause;

2. completion of a behavioral act with a reflex action, response;

3. forward movement of excitation along the reflex arc.

All these provisions are rejected when considering behavior from the perspective of TPS [Anokhin, 1978].

The presence of a trigger stimulus is not sufficient for the emergence of adequate behavior. It arises: a) after training, i.e. if appropriate memory material is available; b) in the presence of appropriate motivation and c) in the appropriate environment. These components were, of course, considered by other authors, but only as modulators or conditions under which a given stimulus causes a given reaction associated with it. PC. Anokhin noted that when a given stimulus appears and conditions change, an animal can achieve the result of behavior in a variety of ways that have never been associated with this stimulus. For example, instead of approaching the feeder, it can swim to it if water suddenly becomes an obstacle.

According to TFS, the integration of all these components is carried out within the framework of a special systemic mechanism of afferent synthesis, during which, based on motivation, taking into account the situation and past experience, conditions are created for eliminating excess degrees of freedom - making decisions about what, how and when to do, in order to obtain a useful adaptive result. Decision making ends with the formation of an acceptor of action results, which is an apparatus for predicting the parameters of future results: stage and final, and comparing them with the parameters of the results actually obtained during the implementation of the action program. When compared with the parameters of the obtained stage results, the compliance of the progress of the program with the planned one is revealed (for more details, see [Batuev, 1978; Pashina, Shvyrkov, 1978]) when compared with the final parameters - the correspondence of the achieved relationship between the organism and the environment with the one for which the system was formed. These system mechanisms constitute the operational architectonics of any functional system (Fig. 14.1). Their introduction into the conceptual scheme is the second most important advantage and feature that distinguishes TFS from other options for the systems approach.

The formation in TPS of the idea that the integration of elementary physiological processes is carried out within the framework of qualitatively different specific system processes was of fundamental importance for the development of a psychophysiological approach to the analysis of behavior and activity, as well as a systemic solution to a psychophysiological problem (see paragraph 5). The development of ideas about the qualitative specificity of integration processes was the discovery of a new type of processes in the whole organism - systemic processes that organize particular physiological processes, but are not reducible to the latter.

The discovery of systemic processes made it possible, in contrast to considering material-energy relations between local impact and reaction as the basis of behavior, to treat behavior as an exchange of organization, or information, between the organism and the environment, carried out within the framework of these information processes. At the same time, the position was substantiated that the system categories of TPS simultaneously describe both the organization of the activity of the body’s elements and its connection with the organization of the external environment [Shvyrkov, 1995].

In stable conditions, for example in a laboratory experiment, the trigger stimulus implements ready-made pre-launch integration, which can be characterized as the readiness of systems for future behavior, formed in the process of performing the previous one. It is directed to the future, but the stability of the situation makes the stimulus-response connection obvious. However, analysis of neural activity in behavior clearly shows that the organization of the latter is determined by what result is achieved in this behavior, while the stimulus only “launches”, “allows” implementation. In cases where the same stimulus in terms of physical parameters “triggers” different behavioral acts (for example, food-procuring or defensive), not only the characteristics of neuronal activity turn out to be different in these acts, but even the very set of cells involved, including in “stimulus-specific” areas of the brain (for example, in the visual cortex when a visual stimulus is presented; see [Shvyrkova, 1979; Aleksandrov, 1989]).

Rice. 14.1. Functional system and behavioral continuum

Operational architectonics of a functional system according to P.K. Anokhin (above). For information on the systemic mechanisms that make up the operational architectonics, see paragraph 2. The arrows from “dominant motivation” to “memory” demonstrate that the nature of the information retrieved from memory is determined by the dominant motivation. The diagram also illustrates the idea that the acceptor of action results contains models of stage results along with the final result and that the model of the latter is represented not by a single characteristic, but by a complex of parameters.

Behavioral continuum (bottom). Р n’, Р n+1 – results of behavioral acts; p1,2,3,– milestone results; T- transformation processes (see paragraph 2). For sets of systems that ensure the implementation of successive acts of the continuum (each set has its own type of shading) and for the involvement in transformation processes of systems that are not involved in the implementation of acts, the replacement of which by these processes is ensured (these systems are indicated by unshaded ovals), see paragraph 7

The second position of the reflex theory, which is rejected by TFS, is the assessment of action as the final stage of a behavioral act. From the perspective of TFS, the final stage of the act deployment is a comparison of the parameters predicted in the acceptor with the parameters of the actually obtained result. If the parameters correspond to the predicted ones, then the individual implements the next behavioral act; if not, then a mismatch arises in the acceptor apparatus, leading to a restructuring of programs for achieving results.

Finally, TFS rejects the proposition that excitation progresses along the reflex arc. In accordance with this position, the implementation of behavior is ensured by the activation of brain structures that are sequentially involved in the reaction: first, sensory structures that process sensory information, then effector structures that form excitation that activates glands, muscles, etc. However, numerous experiments have shown that during the implementation of a behavioral act there is not a sequential activation of afferent and efferent structures, but a synchronous activation of neurons located in various areas of the brain. The pattern of activation of neurons in these structures turns out to be general and has a general cerebral character. The components of this pattern - successive phases of activation - correspond to the sequence of deployment of the previously described system mechanisms (see [Shvyrkov, 1978, 1995]). Experimental results confirming the synchronicity of neuronal activation in behavior continue to accumulate in Lately, and they are given increasing importance in understanding not only the organization of definitive behavior, but also learning.

Thus, the involvement of neurons in different brain regions in system processes occurs synchronously. These processes are general cerebral and cannot be localized in any area of ​​the brain. In different areas of the brain, behavior is not local afferent or efferent, but the same general cerebral systemic processes of organizing neuronal activity into a system that is not sensory or motor, but functional. The activity of neurons in these areas does not reflect the processing of sensory information or the processes of movement regulation, but the involvement of neurons in certain phases of organization (afferent synthesis and decision making) and implementation of the system. The activity of any structure simultaneously corresponds to both certain properties of the environment and the nature of motor activity.

A single activation pattern and synchronicity of the involvement of neurons in different brain regions in general cerebral system processes do not mean equipotentiality (equivalence) of brain structures; the contribution of these structures to ensuring behavior depends on the specifics of the projection of individual experience onto them (see paragraph 8).

As the key provisions of the reflex theory of P.K. Anokhin highlighted the following:

1. the exclusivity of the trigger stimulus as a factor determining the action that is its cause;

2. completion of a behavioral act with a reflex action, response;

3. forward movement of excitation along the reflex arc.

All these provisions are rejected when considering behavior from the perspective of TPS [Anokhin, 1978].

The presence of a trigger stimulus is not sufficient for the emergence of adequate behavior. It arises: a) after training, i.e. if appropriate memory material is available; b) in the presence of appropriate motivation and c) in the appropriate environment. These components were, of course, considered by other authors, but only as modulators or conditions under which a given stimulus causes a given reaction associated with it. PC. Anokhin noted that when a given stimulus appears and conditions change, an animal can achieve the result of behavior in a variety of ways that have never been associated with this stimulus. For example, instead of approaching the feeder, it can swim to it if water suddenly becomes an obstacle.

According to TFS, the integration of all these components is carried out within the framework of a special systemic mechanism of afferent synthesis, during which, based on motivation, taking into account the situation and past experience, conditions are created for eliminating excess degrees of freedom - making decisions about what, how and when to do, in order to obtain a useful adaptive result. Decision making ends with the formation of an acceptor of action results, which is an apparatus for predicting the parameters of future results: stage and final, and comparing them with the parameters of the results actually obtained during the implementation of the action program. When compared with the parameters of the obtained stage results, the compliance of the progress of the program with the planned one is revealed (for more details, see [Batuev, 1978; Pashina, Shvyrkov, 1978]) when compared with the final parameters - the correspondence of the achieved relationship between the organism and the environment with the one for which the system was formed. These system mechanisms constitute the operational architectonics of any functional system (Fig. 14.1). Their introduction into the conceptual scheme is the second most important advantage and feature that distinguishes TFS from other options for the systems approach.

The formation in TPS of the idea that the integration of elementary physiological processes is carried out within the framework of qualitatively different specific system processes was of fundamental importance for the development of a psychophysiological approach to the analysis of behavior and activity, as well as a systemic solution to a psychophysiological problem (see paragraph 5). The development of ideas about the qualitative specificity of integration processes was the discovery of a new type of processes in the whole organism - systemic processes that organize particular physiological processes, but are not reducible to the latter.

The discovery of systemic processes made it possible, in contrast to considering material-energy relations between local impact and reaction as the basis of behavior, to treat behavior as an exchange of organization, or information, between the organism and the environment, carried out within the framework of these information processes. At the same time, the position was substantiated that the system categories of TPS describe simultaneously both the organization of the activity of the body’s elements and its connection with the organization of the external environment [Shvyrkov, 1995].

In stable conditions, for example in a laboratory experiment, the trigger stimulus implements ready-made pre-launch integration, which can be characterized as the readiness of systems for future behavior, formed in the process of performing the previous one. It is directed to the future, but the stability of the situation makes the stimulus-response connection obvious. However, analysis of neural activity in behavior clearly shows that the organization of the latter is determined by what result is achieved in this behavior, while the stimulus only “launches”, “allows” implementation. In cases where a stimulus with the same physical parameters “triggers” different behavioral acts (for example, food-procuring or defensive), not only the characteristics of neuronal activity turn out to be different in these acts, but even the very set of cells involved, including in “stimulus-specific” areas of the brain (for example, in the visual cortex when a visual stimulus is presented; see [Shvyrkova, 1979; Aleksandrov, 1989]).

Rice. 14.1. Functional system and behavioral continuum

Operational architectonics of a functional system according to P.K. Anokhin (above). For information on the systemic mechanisms that make up the operational architectonics, see paragraph 2. The arrows from “dominant motivation” to “memory” demonstrate that the nature of the information retrieved from memory is determined by the dominant motivation. The diagram also illustrates the idea that the acceptor of action results contains models of stage results along with the final result and that the model of the latter is represented not by a single characteristic, but by a complex of parameters.

Behavioral continuum (bottom). Р n’, Р n+1 – results of behavioral acts; p1,2,3,– milestone results; T- transformation processes (see paragraph 2). For sets of systems that ensure the implementation of successive acts of the continuum (each set has its own type of shading) and for the involvement in transformation processes of systems that are not involved in the implementation of acts, the replacement of which by these processes is ensured (these systems are indicated by unshaded ovals), see paragraph 7

The second position of the reflex theory, which is rejected by TFS, is the assessment of action as the final stage of a behavioral act. From the perspective of TFS, the final stage of the deployment of the act is a comparison of the parameters predicted in the acceptor with the parameters of the actually obtained result. If the parameters correspond to the predicted ones, then the individual implements the next behavioral act; if not, then a mismatch arises in the acceptor apparatus, leading to a restructuring of programs for achieving results.

Finally, TFS rejects the proposition that excitation progresses along the reflex arc. In accordance with this position, the implementation of behavior is ensured by the activation of brain structures that are sequentially involved in the reaction: first, sensory structures that process sensory information, then effector structures that form excitation that activates glands, muscles, etc. However, numerous experiments have shown that during the implementation of a behavioral act there is not a sequential activation of afferent and efferent structures, but a synchronous activation of neurons located in various areas of the brain. The pattern of activation of neurons in these structures turns out to be general and has a general cerebral character. The components of this pattern - successive phases of activation - correspond to the sequence of deployment of the previously described system mechanisms (see [Shvyrkov, 1978, 1995]). Experimental results confirming data on the synchrony of neuron activation in behavior continue to accumulate in recent years, and they are given increasing importance in understanding not only the organization of definitive behavior, but also learning.

Thus, the involvement of neurons in different brain regions in system processes occurs synchronously. These processes are general cerebral and cannot be localized in any area of ​​the brain. In different areas of the brain, behavior is not local afferent or efferent, but the same general cerebral systemic processes of organizing neuronal activity into a system that is not sensory or motor, but functional. The activity of neurons in these areas does not reflect the processing of sensory information or the processes of movement regulation, but the involvement of neurons in certain phases of organization (afferent synthesis and decision making) and implementation of the system. The activity of any structure simultaneously corresponds to both certain properties of the environment and the nature of motor activity.

A single activation pattern and synchronicity of the involvement of neurons in different brain regions in general cerebral system processes do not mean equipotentiality (equivalence) of brain structures; the contribution of these structures to ensuring behavior depends on the specifics of the projection of individual experience onto them (see paragraph 8).