Microsoft Word - BRAIN_2017_vol8_issue2_final2.docx


151 

 

Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. 
The Problem of the Scientific Creation 

 
Temur Z. Kalanov 

Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan 
tzk_uz@yahoo.com 
t.z.kalanov@mail.ru 

 t.z.kalanov@rambler.ru 
 
 Abstract 
 In this study it is proposed the critical analysis of the creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) 
and of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The unity of formal logic and rational dialectics is the 
methodological basis of the analysis. The main results of the analysis are as follows: (1) the model 
of man represents the unity of the two material aspects: “physiological body” (controllable aspect) 
and “psychical body” (controlling aspect); (2) the “psychical body” is the subsystem 
“subconsciousness + consciousness”; (3) in the comprehensive sense of the word, the thinking is an 
attribute of the complete system “physiological body + psychical body + environment”. (3) in the 
broad sense of the word, thinking and creativity are an essential feature of the subsystem 
“subconsciousness + consciousness”; (4) in the narrow (concise) sense of the word, thinking and 
creativity are the attribute of the instinct of the conservation (preservation, retention, maintenance) 
of life (i.e., the self-preservation instinct, the survival instinct); the instinct of the conservation of 
life exists in subconsciousness; (5) the instinct of life conservation is a system of elementary (basic) 
instincts; thinking is the attribute of the each elementary instinct; (6) the mechanism of thinking and 
the essence of creation cannot be cognized by men; (7) a computer as a device cannot think and 
create (in particular, it cannot prove theorems), because a computer does not have the 
subconsciousness; (8) the modeling of human thinking, Human Intellect, and the creation of AI and 
AGI are the impossible because the essential properties of the complete system “man + 
environment” cannot be cognized and modeled; (9) the existence of AI and AGI conflicts with the 
essence of the thinking; (10) the existence of AI and AGI contradict to formal-logical and rational-
dialectical laws. 

Keywords: human intellect, artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, artificial 
psychology, computer science, psychology, linguistics, mathematics, P versus NP problem, 
Millennium Problems (Clay Mathematics Institute), formal logic, dialectics, philosophy, 
metaphysics. 

 
 1. Introduction 
 As is known, the problem of creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and of Artificial General 
Intelligence (AGI) over a long period of time attracts special attention from the researchers 
(mathematicians, cyberneticists, programmers, neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers, etc.). 
 The results of researches carried out by scientists in recent years show that the way to 
comprehend and solve the problem has not yet been found (ICAI'16). In my opinion, the 
explanation of the current state of research is as follows: 
(a) researchers neglect the correct methodological basis of the cognition (i.e., the unity of formal 
logic and of rational dialectics); 
(b) the scope of the standard paradigm of science is narrow. This signifies that the statement of the 
problem and the starting points of the problem must be analyzed within the framework of the 
correct methodological basis. First of all, one must answer the following key questions: What is the 
essence of man? What is the essence of thinking? What is the mechanism of thinking? What is the 
correct thinking? What are mind, intellect, intelligence, mentality, psychics? What is creation, 
creativity? What is the scientific creation, creativity? If there will be found correct and concrete 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

152 

 

answers to these questions, then a new statement of the problem of creating Artificial Intelligence 
can be proposed. Since only a man can tell what he thinks and how he thinks, one can try to model 
only human thinking. 
 1. As it is known, human creativity is an activity directed at the production of something that 
has qualitatively new, original, inimitable features, and socio-historical uniqueness. Human 
creativity is the specific and essential feature of man because creativity is always a sign of the 
existence of the active creator, the subject of creative activity. In my opinion, the source and the 
driving force of a man’s creative activity is a manifestation of the following innate qualities that 
represent his essence (essential features). First, the essence of man is manifested in his programmed 
aspiration to progress (programmed striving for progress). (Progress is the development of mankind 
by “negation of negation”). This aspiration represents the principle of Mankind development and it 
is expressed as wars, as the use of nature, as the use of people (for example, slavery is a form of the 
use of people), and as scientific and technical creation. The aspiration to achieve the goal is the 
source and the driving force of creativity. The goal exists, but it must be found by Humankind. 
Secondly, the sublime emotions (the feeling of truth and justice, the feeling of harmony and beauty, 
the feeling of love and admiration) are the basis of human morality, cause and effect, the source and 
the driving force of creative activity. The ultimate goal of creative activity is the attainment of the 
greatest feelings: feeling of satisfaction, peace, and freedom. 
 2. Creation is a deep individual activity. The result of the creation is not a direct and simple 
consequence of the initial (external and internal) conditions. The creative process is not reduced to 
labour or logical operations and expresses ultimately the moral aspect of the author’s personality. 
This fact determines the social importance of the results of creation for the progress of human 
society. The principle of human development (i.e., the principle as property of the system 
“Mankind”) determines the creative activity of man (i.e., the property of the element “man”); the 
creative activity of man (i.e., the property of the element “man”) characterizes the principle of 
development of Mankind (i.e., the property of the system “Mankind”). 
 3. Creative activity is developed on the basis of inherent (programmed) cognitive abilities. 
The creative activity of a man is the concretization of the principle of human development. Human 
creation is the process of human activity adducting to making a qualitatively new material and 
spiritual values. There are different kinds of creative activity: industrial, political, scientific, 
technical, artistic activities, etc. The scientific-creative work is related to the activities of scientists 
for the production of fundamentally new knowledge, for the offering of new hypotheses and 
construction of theories, for the search and proving of truth. The essence of scientific creation is 
manifested in scientific discovery: the ascertainment of new, previously unknown facts, properties 
and laws of the real world. The newness, novelty, and social significance of the results are an 
important criterion of creativity. 
 4. Scientific creation is a process of producing cognitive innovations (laws, theories, 
principles, methods, models, devices, equipment models, technologies) in science. The necessary 
conditions for carrying the scientific-creative work are as follows: (a) the existence of the well-
posed problem; (b) the availability of information accumulated in the given field of science (i.e., 
professionalism); (c) the combinatorial ability of a researcher to create a wide variety of 
combinations (including low-probability combinations) of the known elements; (d) the intuitive 
ability of a researcher to the selection of relevant combinations for a probable solution of the 
problem; (e) the ability of a researcher to make risky decisions (i.e the cognitive courage of a 
researcher); (f) the readiness of the researcher to defend his opinion; (g) the stability (resistibility) 
of the researcher to criticism from the scientific community. 
 5. Scientific cognition is a cognitive creation, and it is a manifestation of the active nature of 
the subject of cognition. Scientific creativity is an expression of the innate (individual) qualities of 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

153 

 

person, a result of loss of faith in the scientific authorities, the expression of his “Ego”. In my 
opinion, finding one’s “Ego” and faith in oneself are impossible without the awareness and 
recognition of the existence of the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Mind, and God. Awareness and 
recognition of the existence of the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Mind, and God are the result of 
consciousness clarification. Clarified, enlightened consciousness is the support for one’s “Ego”. For 
example, faith in myself and faith in the existence of the Absolute Truth let me assert within the 
framework of the correct methodological basis that the works of the classics of sciences (such as 
theoretical physics and mathematics) contain formal-logical and dialectical errors (T.Z. Kalanov, 
between 1991 & 2016). The errors characterize the inductive method of cognition (i.e., the 
cognition by “negation of the negation”) and represent the essential and inalienable part of modern 
sciences. 
 6. In my opinion, the origin of the scientific errors in the works of classics of sciences can be 
explained in the following concrete actual way: (a) short-time lucid interval, short-time clarification 
(strikening, illumination, enlightenment) of consciousness, which leads to scientific discoveries, 
does not represent long-time and steady clarification (strikening, illumination, enlightenment) of 
consciousness (but long-time and steady clarification of consciousness is preserved throughout a 
person’s life!); scientific discoveries – as a result of short-time lucid interval, short-time 
clarification of consciousness –  are not absolute truths: such discoveries, as a rule, contain the 
formal-logical and dialectical mistakes; (b) errors in sciences can be detected only under the critical 
analysis of the works within the framework of a correct methodological basis; (c) scientists ignore 
the correct methodological basis of sciences: the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics; (d) 
scientists rely on a computer: scientists want to entrust the heavy, difficult, complex, complicated 
cognitive work to a computer; scientists are trying to turn (transmute) a computer into a creative 
robot.  
 But computer does not have the human subconsciousness and consciousness. And man does 
not know and cannot know what are subconsciousness and consciousness, what is the mechanism of 
interaction between the subconsciousness and consciousness. Therefore, computer (and a 
supercomputer) cannot perform the following actions: to create; to operate with concepts and to 
think; to formulate scientific problems; to generate correct solutions to complex scientific problems; 
to prove theorems; to critically analyze the theorems and the theories within the correct 
methodological basis; to detect errors in the sciences. Computer is a computational-informational 
machine programmed by man. But man will never be able to create an algorithm of thinking and of 
creation. 
 There are no scientific works which contain proofs of possibility or impossibility of creation 
of AI and of AGI. The purpose of this work is to propose the critical analysis of the problem of 
relation between the creative scientific work of man and work of computer in order for the 
researchers to be aware of the problem of creation of Artificial Intelligence and of Artificial General 
Intelligence. The methodological basis of the analysis is the unity of formal logic and of rational 
dialectics. 
 
 2. The methodological basis 
 As it is known, methodology is a doctrine of the structure, logical organization, methods and 
facilities of human activity. The scientific methodology is a doctrine of the principles of 
construction, forms and methods of scientific cognition. The general methodology of scientific 
cognition is the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. The unity of formal logic and of 
rational dialectics represents the only correct methodological basis of sciences. Using the correct 
methodological basis is a necessary condition for the correct analysis of scientific works in order to 
make a distinction between truth and falsehood. However, this fact has been ignored by the majority 
of scientists until now. Therefore, the main assertions of formal logic and of rational dialectics 
which are used in my works (T.Z. Kalanov, between 1991 & 2016) ought to be stated here as well. 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

154 

 

 
 2.1. The basic principles of formal logic 
 1. Formal logic is the science of the laws of correct thinking as well as a means of knowing 
the reality. Correct thinking represents uncontradictory, coherent, consistent, and sequential 
thinking. The conclusions resulting from correct thinking are true statements which reflect correctly 
the objective reality in the process of the scientific cognition of the world. The basic formal-logical 
laws are the following four laws: the law of identity, the law of lack (absence) of contradiction, the 
law of the excluded middle, the law of sufficient reason. 
 2. Thinking is the highest form of human cognitive activity which represents the process of 
reflecting the objective reality in the human consciousness. Human thinking is performed with the 
help of concepts and it has different forms. 
 3. The form of thought reflecting and fixing the essential features (sings) of things, objects, 
and phenomena of reality is called concept. In other words, the concept is the thought that reflects 
things, objects from viewpoint of the general and essential features (signs). (A thing is an object that 
can be in relation to anything or have some property). 
 4. The essential features (sings) of the concept are chosen (are singled out) in objects and 
phenomena by thought. The essential features (sings) characterize the objects of given kind. Non-
essential features (sings) do not characterize the objects of given kind. The characteristic which is 
used to determine similarity or difference of objects of thought is called essential features (sing). In 
the most general view, features (sings) of objects can be reduced to properties (for example, large, 
small, white, black, good, bad, soft, hard, etc.), states (for example, the state of rest, state of motion, 
energetic state, equilibrium state, etc.), actions (for example, it works, he reads, she performs her 
duties, etc.), and results of actions (for example, have scored success, have benefited, etc.), etc.  
 5. The first basic form of thought is a concept. Concepts are formed (created) with the help 
of logical methods such as analysis and synthesis, abstraction and generalization. Analysis is the 
mental decomposition (dissection) of the object of thought in terms of the elements, the choice 
(separation) of either feature (sing), and the consideration of it separately. Analysis does not give 
knowledge of the object or phenomenon as a whole. Synthesis is the mental integration (association, 
combination, junction) of the elements of the object or of the phenomenon. Synthesis provides the 
knowledge of the object or phenomenon as a whole (as a unity of parts, as a system). But this 
knowledge is not the reliable and complete one. Abstraction is the mental separation, the mental 
extraction of the certain, essential features (sings) of the object or phenomenon, and the passing 
over of all the other features (i.e., abandonment of all other features (sings) without consideration). 
Generalization is the mental transition from the features (sings) of individual, separate, single 
objects to features (sings) belonging to whole groups (classes) of these objects.  
 6. All the concepts can be divided into the following separate types: single concepts and 
general concepts. The concept that relates to the only certain object, separate phenomenon, separate 
event, is called single (individual) concept. The concept that embraces (covers) a group (class) of 
similar things, objects is called general concept.  
 7. Each concept has two aspects: the scope (volume) of the concept and the content of the 
concept. The scope (volume) of the concept is all the objects and phenomena which can be 
embraced (covers) by the given concept. The scope (volume) of the general concepts is expressed in 
the form of a logical class. The concept content is a set of all the essential features (sings) of the 
objects, phenomena embraced (covered) by the concept. 
 8. All the concepts can be divided into the following separate types: concrete concepts and 
abstract concepts. The concrete concept is the concept that relates to groups, classes of objects, 
phenomena, or to separate objects, phenomena. The abstract concept is the concept of the properties 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

155 

 

of objects or phenomena, if these properties are taken as the separate (independent) object of 
thought and are abstracted from objects. 
 9. There is a special kind of concepts that is called categories. The categories are the 
scientific concepts reflecting the most common properties of objects and phenomena, the most 
common and essential relations and connections in reality. For example, the concepts of “matter”, 
“movement”, “content”, “form”, “causality”, "freedom", “necessity”, “randomnicity”, “essence”, 
“phenomenon” are the categories.  
 10. There are the following relations between the concepts: identity relation; relation of 
subordination; relation of collateral subordination; relation of partial coincidence; relation of 
disagreement. (For example, the relation of disagreement exists between contradictory concepts and 
opposite concepts). 
 11. The second, more complicated, form of thought is a proposition. The proposition is the 
logical form of expression of thought. The proposition is the logical content of grammatical 
sentence. The proposition is a statement about the objects and phenomena of the objective reality. 
The statement states the existence or absence of certain features (sings) of objects and of 
phenomena. The proposition has the following two properties: (a) the proposition either asserts or 
denies (negates); (b) the proposition is either true or false. The proposition is always an assertion or 
a negation. The proposition is true if it reflects reality correctly; and the proposition is false if it 
reflects reality incorrectly. Every proposition represents a system of concepts. There are three 
elements in every proposition: subject, predicate, and connective word (element). The subject of the 
proposition is that what one states about. The predicate of the proposition is that what one states on 
the subject. The connective word (element) is an indication of the relation between subject and 
predicate. In any proposition, the subject and the predicate are concepts connected by a connective 
word (element). The connective element in any proposition is expressed by the words “is” or “is 
not”.  
 12. The third form of thought is an inference. The inference represents the connection of 
propositions, which makes it possible to derive a new proposition from a given one or more 
propositions. Those propositions from which one derives the new proposition are called premises, 
and the new proposition derived from the premises is called conclusion. The relation between the 
premises and the conclusion is the relation between reason (basis) and consequence (logical 
corollary): the premises are the reason (basis) from which the conclusion follows as a consequence 
(logical corollary). Consequently, the inference is based on the law of sufficient reason.  
Depending on the number of premises, all the inferences are divided into two groups: immediate 
inferences and mediated inferences. The immediate inference is the inference in which the 
conclusion is the consequence of one premise. The mediated inference is the conclusion in which a 
new proposition is derived from two or more propositions. 
 13. The mediated inferences can be of two types: deductive and inductive. The mediated 
deductive inference is called syllogism if a conclusion is derived from two premises. The inference 
is called inductive inference if the premises indicate features of separate objects or groups of 
separate objects, and the conclusion is extended to other objects of the same kind. Deduction and 
induction are in inseparable connection with each other and supplement each other. Mathematics 
mainly uses the method of deduction. 
 14. Scientific induction is based on the determination of the causes. Therefore, the problem 
of the causal connection of phenomena is important for scientific induction. The causal connection 
of phenomena is that one phenomenon causes another phenomenon, and a change in the first 
phenomenon entails a change in the second phenomenon too. The phenomenon which necessarily 
entails another phenomenon is called cause, and the second phenomenon which is entailed by this 
cause is called effect of this cause. Thus, the connection of cause and effect is a connection of two 
phenomena, two facts. In order to determine the cause of the studied phenomenon, one should use 
two basic logical methods of the inductive research: an intercomparison of the circumstances in 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

156 

 

which the given phenomenon occurs; a comparison of these circumstances (in which the given 
phenomenon occurs) with other circumstances (similar in other relations) in which the given 
phenomenon does not occur. 
 15. The validity (trueness) of some proposition is determined with the help of proof. The 
proof is a determination of the validity (trueness) of some propositions by the use of other true 
propositions from which the validity (trueness) of the given proposition follows. The proofs are 
based on the logical law of sufficient reason. The proof represents an indication of sufficient reason 
for whatever proposition. Whatever proof consists of three parts: thesis, arguments, demonstration 
(manifestation). The proposition is called thesis if one proves validity of this proposition. The 
propositions which are used for the proof of the thesis are called arguments (i.e., sufficient reason). 
 The derivation of thesis from arguments is called demonstration (manifestation). In other 
words, demonstration (manifestation) is the propositions that show why the given thesis is 
substantiated (grounded) by the given arguments. 
 
 2.2. The basic principles of rational dialectics 
 1. Rational dialectics (i.e., corrected dialectical materialism) is a science of programmed 
(predetermined) development: it is the science of the most common types of connections and laws 
of the development of nature, of human society, and of thought. The universal connection exists not 
only in the material world – in the nature and society – but also in thinking. The connection and 
interdependence of the forms of thought (for example, concepts) is (in the final analysis) the 
reflection of the universal connection and interdependence of the phenomena of the objective world 
in human consciousness. Since concepts are the reflection of objects in human consciousness, they 
are interconnected, and they cannot be taken in isolation from each other. Concepts must 
correspond to the natural and social processes, reflecting their contents. 
 2. The basic laws of dialectics are as follows: the law of unity and struggle of opposites; the 
law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative changes; the law of negation of the 
negation. There are also the most common laws of dialectics, which do not belong to the basic ones. 
The paired (relative) categories of dialectics – necessity and chance, possibility and reality, form 
and content, essence and phenomenon, etc. – are the theoretical reflection of non-basic laws of 
dialectics. All the laws and categories of dialectics represent forms of thought, forms of cognition of 
the objective world, forms of reflection of the objective world in the human consciousness. 
 3. As it is known, the cognitive psychical activity of man is performed in the following way 
(by the scheme): 

 

(sensation, perception, representation) (concept)   (theory)   (practice). 
 

 Sensation is a result of the influence (effect) of the outside world on the sense-organs of 
man; perception is an immediate (direct) sensuous reflection of the reality in the consciousness of 
man; a representation is an image of an object or phenomenon (which is not perceived at a given 
instant of time) in the consciousness of man. Thinking is carried out with the help of concepts. A 
concept is the form of thought reflecting and fixing the essential features (signs) of objects and 
phenomena of the objective reality. Theory is a system of concepts. 
 4. The unity of sensuous and rational moments in cognition is that sensuous cognition 
represents the starting point, the first stage of the cognitive activity. A man, even at the level of 
logical thinking, continues to rely on (rest upon) sensuously perceivable material in the form of 
visual images, of various schemes, of symbols, on sensuous form of language. 
 5. Material activity of people represents practice. Practice is (first of all) a sensuous-
objective activity aimed at satisfying human needs. The theoretical activity is derived from practice. 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

157 

 

Social practice is a starting and ending point of theory. The unity of theory and of practice is a 
starting point of epistemology. Practice is a driving force in cognition development. 
 6. Social practice is a criterion of truth. The criterion of truth can be found neither in the 
object of cognition nor in the consciousness of the subject. Practice is the experience of all 
humanity in its historical development. The absoluteness of practice as the criterion of truth is that 
all knowledge proven by practice is an objective truth. But, at every given stage (step) of theoretical 
study, practice can not corroborate completely or refute all theoretical propositions – in this sense, 
practice is relative. Only the unity of formal logic and of practice can corroborate completely or 
refute all theoretical propositions at every given stage (step) of theoretical study. 
 7. The law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative changes is essential to 
analyze the foundations of mathematics. The essence of this law is as follows: quantitative and 
qualitative changes represent the dialectical unity (interconnection) of the opposite and 
interdependent aspects. 
 Quality is inherent determinacy in the objects and phenomena. Quality is the organic unity 
of the properties, features (signs), and characteristics, that makes it possible to distinguish the given 
object or phenomenon from the other ones.  In other words, quality is the unity of structure and 
elements. “There are no qualities, but only objects with qualities” (Friedrich Engels). Quality 
expresses the specific character of an object or phenomenon in whole. Quality is not only a holistic 
characteristic but also a relatively stable set of signs (features) which determines the specificity of 
the given object. Quality is the holistic characteristic of an object or phenomenon; and property is 
one of the aspects (partial characteristics) of the object or phenomenon. Some properties express the 
qualitative determinacy of the object; other properties express the quantitative determinacy. 
 Quantity is the inherent determinacy in the objects and phenomena, which expresses the 
number of inherent properties of objects and of phenomena, the sum of the component parts of 
objects and of phenomena, the amount, the degree of intensity, the scale of development, etc. In 
other words, quantity is the determinacy in objects and phenomena, expressed by a number. For 
example, man ascertains simultaneously the quantitative expression of object properties such as 
volume, weight, length, speed, etc. The quantities of volume, weight, length, speed, etc. are the 
quantitative characteristics of these properties. 
 8. Quality and quantity are dialectically connected. They represent the unity of opposites. 
The qualitative determinacy does not exist without the quantitative determinacy, and vice versa. 
The unity of qualitative and quantitative determinacy is manifested in measure. The measure 
denotes the existence of the interdependence of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the object 
or phenomenon. The measure expresses the limits (boundaries) within which objects and 
phenomena exist. Each state has its own measure.  The violation of the measure leads to a change in 
the state. The transition from one state to another is a movement. The leading place belongs to the 
quality in the unity of qualitative and quantitative determinacy. Quality determines the framework 
of quantitative changes. The qualitative changes can only result from the quantitative changes (i.e. 
quantitative movement). 
 9. The law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative changes is essential for 
analyzing systems. The important theoretical proposition of system analysis is as follows. The 
properties of the system determine the properties of the elements; and the properties of the elements 
characterize the properties of the system. The main problem is that the dependences of the system 
properties (qualitative and quantitative determinacy) on number of the elements and on the 
qualitative and quantitative determinacy of the elements is not reliably known. (From this point of 
view, the Universe (System) cannot be cognized by Mankind (as the element of the System). 
 10. The law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative changes is essential to 
analyze the foundations of mathematics. The question of the fundamental applicability of 
mathematical methods in all the areas of scientific cognition must be decided on the basis of the law 
of interdependence of qualitative and quantitative determinacy. The following fundamental 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

158 

 

statement results from this law: the operation of abstraction of quantitative determinacy from 
qualitative determinacy is an inadmissible mental operation. 
 11. The definitions of the concepts of “knowledge”, “cognition”, and “cognition system” are 
based on the definition of the following concepts: “subject”, “object”, “subject of thinking”, and 
“object of thinking”. 

“Subject” and “object” are philosophical categories (concepts) denoting two interrelated, 
interacting aspects (elements) of the system, which are characterized by the following essential 
features: “activity” and “passivity”. The subject (i.e., set of individuals) is a carrier of the feature of 
“activity”, is an active aspect (i.e., the active element of the system), is a source of activity directed 
(aimed) at the passive aspect (i.e., at the passive element of the system). The object is a carrier of 
the feature of “passivity”, is a passive aspect (i.e., the passive element of the system) to which the 
activity of the active aspect (i.e., the active element of the system) is directed (aimed). 
 The subject of thinking (thought) is the subject as a carrier, is a source of mental activity 
directed (aimed) to the object. The object of thinking (thought) is an object to which the mental 
activity of the subject is directed (aimed). Since the concepts of “subject of thinking” and “object of 
thinking” have meaning only in mutual connection, they form a system of concepts. 
 The concepts of “subject of thinking” and “object of thinking” are the basis for the following 
definitions. 
  (a) Cognition is an informational interaction between the subject and the object, the result from 
which derives the knowledge about the object. The object is expressed in the form of knowledge for 
the cognizing subject. Therefore, the content of science represents an expression of the given object 
in the form of knowledge: laws, categories, and other scientific principles generated and developed 
during the development of human society. From the formal-logical point of view, knowledge is a 
system of concepts and assertions. From the point of view of the information theory, knowledge is a 
system of the elements of information. From the epistemological point of view, the knowledge on 
the object is the essence of the object of cognition, and the object of cognition is a manifestation of 
the essence of the object. 
  (b) The scientific cognition of the world is carried out within the framework of the “human system 
of cognition” consisting of the “subject of cognition”, the set of “objects of cognition”, the 
“facilities of cognition”, and “knowledge”. The category of the “human system of cognition” is a 
complete system of concepts, determining human knowledge, and human knowledge characterizes 
this system. (Human knowledge is an objective if it does not depend on the “facilities of cognition” 
and on the world outlook for the “subject of cognition”). 
 
 3. The structure of the scientific creation 
 As it is known, the analysis of the problem of scientific creation, creativity, is impossible 
without an analysis of the structure of the creative process and the separation (choosing, singling 
out) of the main stages (steps) of scientific creation. The standard structure includes the following 5 
stages (steps): (1) the statement of problem, the formulation of purposes and tasks of the research; 
(2) the gathering of information and the search of logical methods for solving the problem; (3) the 
stage of maturation (gestation) of the idea, which is also called the “incubation period”, and which 
is related to the work of the subconsciousness; (4) the appearance of a new idea in the form of 
guesswork; finding the approach to the solution of the problem with the help of the intuitive insight 
(strikening, aha reaction) or Enlightenment (inside light); (5) the formulation of the solution found; 
the substantiation of the found guesswork up to the level of hypothesis; the transformation of the 
hypothesis into a theory via logical proving and testing of the hypothesis. 
 In other words, logical, discursive, and intuitive moments in the creative process are 
interwoven. 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

159 

 

 The problem of the nature and of the role of intuition in scientific discovery should be 
emphasized due to the importance and transcendence of intuition. 
 Intuition – as a specific cognitive process – is the universal inherent feature of all people. 
 The significance of intuition in the cognitive process is confirmed by numerous observations 
over people in daily circumstances and in non-standard situations. As it is known, there is a great 
number of facts in Human culture, which demonstrate the possibility to obtain fundamentally new 
results by “aha reaction”. For example, famous scientists like G. Helmholtz, A. Einstein, H. 
Poincare, J. Hadamard, and others gave the interesting evidences of the intuitive insights. In 
concordance with descriptions and the experimental study of intuition, three main features of 
intuition can be emphasized: (1) suddenness (spontaneity) for solving the problem; (2) unawareness 
of ways and of means to solve the problem; (3) directness of the prolem’s solution comprehension. 
 In agreement with these features, intuition is defined as follows: intuition is the ability of 
truth cognition by its direct comprehension, without proof. 
 The psychological analysis of intuition is based on the study of the relation between the 
conscious and subconscious (unconscious) mechanisms. The epistemological nature of intuition is 
clarified in complex transitions of sensuous images into concepts, and in complex transitions of 
concepts into sensuous images by means of the synthesis of conceptual universality and the given 
sensuous. A number of contemporary authors see in these transitions an answer to the mysterious 
nature of intuitive knowledge. 
 There exist works of psychologists and physiologists in which factors contributing to 
intuition or non-contributing to the manifestation of intuition are investigated. The factors which are 
favorable to intuition are as follows: high professional level as a researcher; a deep knowledge of 
the problem; a strong motivation to solve the problem; the search dominant; the presence of hint 
about the correct idea, etc. Also, there exist some recommendations for activization of intuition: one 
ought to temporarily shut oneself down from problems in order to activate the subconscious 
mechanisms of thinking; one ought to work on several problems in parallel; one ought to believe in 
success, etc. As it is known from the history of philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and others 
paid a great attention to the problem of intuition. 
 Considering the scientific works of these outstanding creative personalities, it is 
demonstrated the deeply individual nature of creativity, the importance of professionalism, talent, 
intuition, and moral qualities of the researcher. The scientific cognition is both the discursive and 
the intuitive process [96, 97]; it is a confluence of necessity and randomness. As it is known, the 
experience of science development shows that creativity can be activated within certain limits. The 
creation control signifies influence not only on the individual abilities of the researcher, but also on 
socio-economic, political, and general-cultural circumstances in order to create favorable conditions 
for the manifestation of creativity. 
 
 4. The essences of man and of animal 
 The essence of man can be understood only within the framework of the system principle. 
 As it is known, the system principle reads as follows: the properties of the material system 
determine the properties of the material elements; the properties of the material elements 
characterize the properties of the material system. 
 1. In accordance with the system principle, the following assertions are right (valid): (a) the 
properties of the Universe (as a system) determine the properties of the Earth (as an element); the 
properties of the Earth (as an element) characterize the properties of the Universe (as a system); (b) 
the properties of the Earth (as a system) determine the properties of Mankind (as an element); the 
properties of Mankind (as an element) characterize the properties of the Earth (as a system); (c) the 
property of Mankind (as the system consisting of a set of countries) determine the properties of the 
country (as an element); properties of the country (as an element) characterize the properties of 
Mankind (as the system consisting of a set of countries); (d) the properties of the country (as a 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

160 

 

system) determine the properties of the man (as an element); the properties of the man (as an 
element) characterize the properties of the country (as a system). Consequently, the properties of the 
man are determined by the properties of the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind [17, 19, 26-28, 38, 
45, 47, 50, 86, 87].  
 2. In accordance with the rational dialectics (T.Z. Kalanov, between 1991 & 2016), living 
beings have measure, i.e. the unity of qualitative and quantitative determinacy. Living beings – 
man, animal, etc. – represent the unity of the two opposite material aspects [45, 47, 50]: 
physiological body (i.e., the controllable aspect which is a system of organs) and the psychical body 
(i.e., the controlling aspect which is the following system: the unity of subconsciousness 
(subliminal consciousness) and consciousness).  
 Human consciousness represents the unity of two opposite material aspects (T.Z. Kalanov, 
2009c, 2010b, 2010e): Mind (Intellect) and Soul. The Soul is the unity of Good and of Evil. Human 
actions have only one “degree of freedom”: freedom to do good or evil. The decomposition of the 
unity of Mind (Intellect) and of Soul signifies the following fact: the Mind (Intellect) becomes food 
for the Supreme Mind (Intellect) (which is a material object), and the Soul goes to Paradise or Hell 
(both of them are material objects) in accordance with the deeds (good-deeds or misdeeds) of man. 
 From this point of view, the interpretation of the story of Adam and of Eve is as follows. 
Adam and Eve being in Paradise (Eden) ate the “Apple of the Empty Mind” from the “Tree of 
Mind”. As a result, their Souls were concatenated (united) with “Empty Mind”. Since the unity of 
Mind and of Soul (i.e., the psychical body) cannot exist in Paradise (by definition, the concept of 
“Paradise” signifies the abode of the Good), Adam and Eve received knowledge from God (i.e., 
God placed, introduced knowledge (information) into their Empty Minds), and they were 
precipitated (casted out) from Paradise to the Earth. The overthrow to the Earth signifies the 
formation of the unity of “psychical body + physiological body”. Therefore, the Earth is the abode 
of the unity of “psychical body + physiological (terrestrial) body”; the Moon is the abode of the 
unity of “psychical body + Lunar (extraterrestrial) body”; the Mars is the abode of the unity of 
“psychical body + Martian (extraterrestrial) body”; the Sun is the abode of the unity of “psychical 
body + Solar (extraterrestrial) body”, etc. 
 3. As it is known, the qualitative determinacy of the systems “Mankind”, “man” and 
“Fauna”, “animal” remains an invariable one. This means that the development of these systems 
represents a quantitative change. The quantitative change is a manifestation of the qualitative 
determinacy. In other words, the qualitative determinacy of the system is the essence of the system, 
and the quantitative determinacy of the system is a manifestation of the essence. The qualitative 
determinacy of the system determines the borders of quantitative changes. The qualitative 
determinacy of the system is not identical to itself outside the borders of the quantitative 
determinacy. For example, the birth and death of the physiological body represent borders of the 
“physiological body + psychical body” system. The “physiological body + psychical body” system 
can be in different states. The death of the physiological body is the disintegration of the unity of 
the physiological body and of the psychical body. But the death of the physiological body does not 
signify the death of the psychical body. The psychical body can exist separately from the 
physiological body. This means that the psychical body represents the universal essence which does 
not depend on the properties of the physiological body.  
 4. The life of a living organism is conditioned by the existence of the following inherent 
property (qualitative determinacy): the instinct of conservation (preservation, retention) of life (i.e., 
self-preservation instinct, survival instinct, the instinct of the existence, the instinct of the struggle 
for existence). The life (existence) of a living organism is a struggle for existence, for the 
preservation (conservation) of the physiological body’s life. The instinct of conservation 
(preservation, retention) of life represents the system of the following main elementary instincts: the 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

161 

 

feeding (food) instinct, the instinct of reproduction, the instinct of activity (which is manifested in 
the form of “life energy”, of the struggle for existence), the defensive instinct, the instinct of 
adaptability, the instinct of learning and of development. The instinct of life conservation 
(preservation) exists in the psychical body and manifests itself only in the system of “physiological 
body + psychical body”. In other words, the instinct of preservation (conservation) of life represents 
a necessary condition for the life of the physiological body. The decomposition of the unity of the 
physiological and psychical body leads to the blockage of the instinct of preservation (conservation) 
of life, which exists in the psychical body. This means that a living organism was created as a full 
(completed) “physiological body + psychical body” system. A living organism was not created by 
piecemeal. 
 5. Thinking (thought) is one of the essential properties (attribute) of the instinct of life 
conservation (preservation, retention). Therefore, thinking (thought) is one of the essential 
properties (attributes) of each elementary instinct. Blocking the instinct of conservation of life 
signifies blocking the thinking (thought). The isolated psychical body cannot think. Thus, thinking 
(thought) is the attribute of the “physiological body + psychical body” system. 
 6. The food instinct is the need (necessity, wants) of material food (for the physiological 
body) and the need (necessity, wants) of psychical food (for the psychical body). The psychical 
food for people represents a product of human psychical activity. The psychical food for people is 
created and eaten (consumed). Examples of carriers of psychical food for are as follows: games, 
shows, arts, religion, learning, education, sciences, creative activity, and the results of creative 
activity. The psychical food for animals represents a product of animal psychical activity. The 
psychical food for animals is created and eaten (consumed) by animals. Examples of carriers of 
psychical food for animals are as follows: games and training. 
 7. Man gets psychical (i.e., immaterial, information-encoded) food from the ambient 
material space because the ambient material space is the source and the carrier of encoded 
information. This information has a unified, universal code. The psychical food (encoded 
information) is absorbed and processed by the subconsciousness and it is entered into the 
consciousness. The consciousness manifests (i.e., decodes) information in the form of thoughts and 
ideas. Moreover, the consciousness manifests the encoded information in the scope of concepts that 
exist in the consciousness. Thoughts and ideas are a human interpretation of the encoded 
information that exists in the subconscious. Brain implements (executes, exercises, accomplishes) 
materialization of thoughts, ideas (existing in the consciousness): the brain gives orders (commands, 
instructions) to organs in the physiological body to express the information as an oral speech and 
written speech, as music, symbols, concepts, theories, images, etc. These forms are the material 
carriers (incarnations) of the information. The information in the material forms is a psychical 
(spiritual) food for human consciousness, and it is eaten (consumed) by people. 
The difference between the physiological properties of the bodies (for example, the human body 
and the animal body, male and female) determines the difference in interpreting the encoded 
information that exists in the subconscious. In other words, the interpretation of the encoded 
information that exists in the subconscious depends on the properties of the physiological bodies. 
One man can guess (calculate logically, heuristically) that another man thinks. But a man cannot 
guess (or calculate logically, heuristically) that an animal thinks. And animals cannot guess (or 
calculate logically, heuristically) that a man thinks.  
 8. The human interpretation of encoded information (existing in the subconsciousness) is 
carried out by the consciousness on the basis and within the scope of concepts that exist in the 
consciousness. If the necessary (basic) concepts do not exist in the consciousness, then the 
interpretation of encoded information cannot be carried out by the consciousness. This means that 
the possibility, accuracy, and trustworthiness (authenticity, reliability, adequacy, certainty) of the 
interpretation depend on the system of concepts that exist in the consciousness. The subconscious 
changes the structure of the consciousness: the subconscious orders concepts, and changes the 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

162 

 

structure of the system of concepts. The subconsciousness “widens, expands, extends, broadens” 
and “illuminates, clarifies, does lucid” the consciousness. The expansion (broadening, widening) 
and the clarification of the consciousness are a necessary condition for correct interpretation of the 
encoded information that exists in the subconsciousness. The stepped (step-by-step, stepwise, 
sequential) expansion (broadening, widening) and enlightenment (clarification) of the 
consciousness (i.e., inductive development of consciousness) determines an inductive way of 
cognition of the Absolute Truth (i.e., the Universal Truth, the Universe’s Truth,  Universe’s Moral 
Principles) and determines the inductive way of development of man and of Humanity (T.Z. 
Kalanov, 2007d, 2009c, 2010b, 2010e). The way of development of man and of Mankind is heavy 
way of cognition of the Absolute Truth via struggle for existence. Comprehension of the Absolute 
Truth (i.e., recognition of the existence and of uniqueness of God via the expansion of 
consciousness) is the single reason of the existence, the aim, the sense, and meaning of 
development, and destination (destiny) of man and of Mankind. In other words, the principle of 
development of Mankind is reduced to the principle of expansion of human consciousness. 
 Mankind will be absorbed (i.e., converted to another qualitative determinacy) by Supreme 
Mind, Supreme Intellect (T.Z. Kalanov, 2007d, 2009c, 2010b, 2010e) when Mankind will reach the 
border of development, border of expansion of consciousness. 
 Thus, in the comprehensive sense of the word, the thinking is an attribute (i.e., inherent and 
essential property, an essential feature) of the complete system “physiological body + psychical 
body + environment”. In the broad sense of the word, the thinking is a process of interaction 
between “subconsciousness” and “consciousness”: 

 

thinking = subconsciousness   consciousness. 
 

 Human thinking is a way (means, method, mechanism) of expansion of human 
consciousness. 
 9. Intercomparison of man and of animal is an important step to understanding the essence 
of man because man and animal have a common aspect: subconsciousness, consciousness, intellect. 
Man has the human consciousness (intellect), a monkey has monkey consciousness (intellect), a dog 
has canine consciousness (intellect), a cat has feline consciousness (intellect), a mouse has mouse 
consciousness (intellect), etc. The thinking is an innate ability of man and of animal to seek, to 
guess, to find, and to check (i.e., to prove in practice) the solution of the problem. The found 
solution is materially manifested (expressed) in the actions of man and of animal. One man can 
guess (calculate logically, heuristically) that another man thinks. But man cannot guess (or calculate 
logically, heuristically) that animal think.  And animal cannot guess (or calculate logically, 
heuristically) that man think.  
  a) Man and animal are living (rational) beings, biological objects, biological systems, biological 
machines, biological robots (in the broad sense of the word). The living being is a material system. 
This system represents the unity of two material aspects: external (physiological) and internal 
(psychical) aspects (T.Z. Kalanov, 2007d, 2009c, 2010b, 2010e). The external aspect is the 
physiological body (physiological machine; form of manifestation of the essence) which consists of 
the controlling organ (brain and spinal cord) and the controllable organs. The psychical aspect 
represents the psychical body (psychical machine; psychical aura; unity of consciousness and of 
subconsciousness; content, essence) which controls the physiological body. Currently, there is no 
complete understanding of the psychical aspect because there is no understanding of the work of the 
subconsciousness. 
  b) The brain of the thinking being is a system consisting of two hemispheres. The hemispheres are 
composed of zones (functional areas). Connection between the zones forms the structure of the 
brain. The structure of the brain is a congenital one. But the congenital structure of the brain can be 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

163 

 

changed under the strong influence of different (internal and external) factors. This change is due to 
the control action of the subconsciousness. The extreme situation leads to the mobilization and 
concentration of physical and spiritual forces of the living being to solve the essential (vital) 
problem arisen. The physical and spiritual forces are determined by his resources. The living being 
(as the unity of the physiological and psychical aspects) has the programmed quality: the living 
being tends to attack, to solve, “to devour” (“to consume”) the essential (vital) problem in order to 
survive and to achieve the feelings of satisfaction and of peace.  (The feelings of pleasure, 
satisfaction, and of peace are also a reward for hard work!). In this case, zones of the brain can be 
disconnected, moved and combined (united) to solve the essential (vital) problems. The brain is an 
organ that controls the material manifestation of the information contained in the subconsciousness 
and the consciousness. Thus, the unity of the psychical and physiological aspects is a necessary 
condition for the solution of the essential (vital) problems. 
  c) Creative activity of the thinking being is conditioned by inseparable relation between the 
subconsciousness, the consciousness, and the physiological body. Strong emotions – the 
inducement, the motivation, the indomitable desire to achieve the goal, hope, disappointment, the 
need to satisfy the desire, the aspiration for satisfaction of the desire –  are the driving force of the 
creative activity. The existence of emotions, thinking, correct thinking is a necessary condition for 
achieving the goal (i.e., for achieving result, satisfaction). Thinking, intellect, and intelligence are 
means of understanding of the result. 
  d) Man and animal are the qualitatively and quantitatively different thinking beings. The 
difference represents the difference of the essences (contents, qualities) and of the manifestations 
(forms, quantities) of the essences. One man can guess (calculate logically, heuristically) that 
another man thinks. But man cannot guess (or calculate logically, heuristically) that animal think. 
And animal cannot guess (or calculate logically, heuristically) that man think. The difference is 
stipulated by the principle of development of Mankind. The principle of development of Mankind 
stipulates human thinking. Connection and relation between the human and animal worlds are 
expressed in the dialectical law of the unity and of struggle of opposites.  
 Man is the highest rung in the hierarchy of living organisms on the Earth, the subject of 
socio-historical and cultural activities. A distinctive and essential feature of man is cultural, social, 
and speech activity, ability to work, ability to think in words, ability to produce tools, ability to use 
the tools for transformation of the world. Speech (oral and written) activity is a specific kind of 
communicative human activity, a means of expressing thoughts. Speech and mental activity are 
interdependent forms of human intellectual activity. Human thinking and expression of result of the 
thinking are carried out by means of a system of concepts (and a system of logical judgments). The 
concepts and the logical judgments are forms of thought. The forms and contents of thoughts are 
determined by innate qualities and human resources, practical, social and intellectual experience of 
the person. Human thinking represents the unity of sensuous and rational aspects: the unity of 
sensuous-objective (i.e., practical) thinking and of abstract (i.e., theoretical) thinking. Human 
activity is a means of expanding human consciousness. 
 Animal does not have the essential human qualities, does not have practical, social and 
intellectual experience of man and does not have the cognitive potential of man. Animal can think. 
But animal cannot think with the help of concepts, and it has no language means to express 
thoughts. Animal thinking represents the sensuous-objective (i.e. practical) thinking. Therefore, 
animal cannot learn formal logic and dialectics. One man can guess (calculate logically, 
heuristically) that another man thinks. But man cannot guess (or calculate logically, heuristically) 
that animal think. And animal cannot guess (or calculate logically, heuristically) that man think. 
 Animal cannot solve the human problems because animal has no human essence. This 
signifies that one cannot teach animal the following human activities: to formulate and to prove the 
theorem, to analyze critically the works of the scientists, etc. (One can teach a parrot to speak, but it 
does not signify that talking parrot can operate with concepts and can prove the theorems). 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

164 

 

Therefore, animal activity does not lead to the essential expansion of animal consciousness and 
origination (formation, arising) of the human consciousness. 
  e) The unity of the subconscious and conscious of aspects of the human psychic setup is a 
necessary condition for scientific creation. The ardent, fervent, passionate desire to solve the 
problem, a long (for months and maybe years), a exhausting, a agonizing, a delightful, and a tireless 
search for solution to the vital (essential) problems lead to the fact that human consciousness is 
clarified and expanded: the subconsciousness finds a solution based on concepts that exist in the 
consciousness; the solution is transferred from the subconsciousness to the consciousness (i.e., the 
solution of the problem is manifested (decoded) in the consciousness. The solution of the problem 
represents a new system of concepts); man finds peace of mind, self-reliance, and feeling of 
satisfaction. This solution represents a guess, conjecture [96, 97]. The guessed solution allows to 
guess and to construct the proof. Thus, creative activity in science is manifested in guessing of the 
result (statement, theorem, theory) and guessing of the proof of the result (statement, theorem, 
theory). 
  f) The solution of the problem can be guessed by man because the subconsciousness has the 
following essential feature (quality, attribute): (1) to receive, to contain, and to process information 
in a coded form; (2) to contain the program of development of man and of Humanity; (3) to operate 
purposefully without concepts; (4) to operate taking into account of the concepts which is contained 
in the consciousness; (5) to estimate, to evaluate, to assess mentally the structure of the object of 
thinking (cognition); (6) to break, to sever mentally connections between the connected elements of 
the object of thinking (cognition); (7) to establish mentally connections between unconnected 
(unrelated) elements of the object of thinking (cognition); (8) to estimate, to evaluate mentally the 
adequacy of the mental operations. 
 The consciousness can decode the information which is contained in the subconsciousness. 
Mentally-related elements of the object of thinking (cognition) represent a system of concepts and 
of logical propositions (judgments) in the consciousness. (Concept as a form of thought represents a 
unity of stability and of instability within certain limits). In other words, consciousness manifests 
mentally-related elements of the object of thinking (cognition) in the form of a system of concepts 
and of logical propositions (judgments). This system of concepts is called a solution of the problem. 
The proof of the problem, theorem is the awareness (realization) of the structure (i.e., connection of 
elements) of the system of concepts. The proof of the problem (theorem) is carried out in two stages 
(steps): the first stage (step) is the analysis, i.e., the successive expansion of the system of concepts 
and logical propositions (judgments) in terms of the elements. It is a movement from the terminal 
point (result) to the initial (starting) point of the problem (this is necessary condition); the second 
stage is the movement from the initial (starting) point of the problem to the terminal point (result) of 
the problem, theorem (this is sufficient condition). The solution of the problem (theorem) is correct 
(true) if and only if necessary and sufficient conditions are correct. 

Thus, the inseparable connection, interdependence and interaction between the 
subconsciousness and consciousness is a necessary condition for prospecting and finding a solution 
to the problem and for guessing and proof of solution of the problem (theorem). 
 
 The main points of this section are as follows: 
(1) thinking is an attribute of the living being as the material system “physiological body + 
psychical body”; “psychical body” is a material system “subconsciousness + consciousness”; 
(2) thinking is one of the essential features (signs) of the instinct of conservation of life (instinct of 
self-preservative, instinct of survival); the instinct of conservation of life (instinct of self-
preservative, instinct of survival) is a system of instincts; a system of instincts exists in the 
subconsciousness; a system of instincts does not work without the “physiological body”; 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

165 

 

(3) the interconnection, the interdependence, the interaction between the subconsciousness and the 
consciousness is a necessary condition for the existence of thinking; the existence of a complete 
system of “living being + environment” is a sufficient condition for the existence of thinking; 
(4) the essence of thinking (thought) is manifested in the purposeful (rational, expedient, 
reasonable, appropriate, practical) activities of a living being; the purposeful (rational, expedient, 
reasonable, appropriate, practical) activities of a living being are aimed (directed) at the 
conservation (preservation, maintenance) of life (i.e., at the conservation, preservation of the 
physiological body); 
(5) certain living being can solve human (including scientific) problems if and only if a living being 
has human nature. 
 
 5. The essence of scientific creation 
 As is known, the difficult, mysterious, esoteric way of cognition of scientific truth was 
described by famous creative scientists – mathematicians (for example, H. Poincare J. Hadamard, 
G. Polya) and physicists (for example, M. Planck, N. Bohr, A. Einstein) – in many books, articles, 
and autobiographical sketches. I can describe it by the following typical example from my life. 
Over the years, I developed the “hard” style of analysis, based on the use of the correct 
methodological basis: the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. Internal work began with 
what I had understood intuitively (i.e., I had guessed right) the existence of logical errors in the 
analyzed scientific works of the classics of theoretical physics. For a long time, Albert Einstein was 
my first and last serious opponent. The critical study of the works of the classics of theoretical 
physics was continued several years in nonstop run: during the day, I read the works of the classics 
(doing an effort to penetrate deeply into the problem), I thought over the problem (trying to restate 
the problem and to construct proof of the problem on this basis), and I could not sleep at night 
because I continued to think. The long-time and continuous reflections over the concepts that 
seemed previously to me to be so clear and precise made them blurry, fuzzy, and shaky ones. This 
internal work can be compared with the movement through a fog (mist) towards light. In the 
process of the work, I came up close to the psycho-physiological border, limit of my life: I felt and 
was aware of the existence of this border (but I did not cross the border: instinct of self-preservation 
worked!). Being in such an extreme state, I began finally to feel that: 
  (a) the mist was being dissipated, and a stable and permanent (long-time) lucid interval of 
consciousness was being occurred, i.e., clear and explicitly palpable understanding was being 
appeared, thoughts were being ordered, the concepts were becoming accurate, clear, precise ones. 
(A clear understanding, perceived as a peace and self-reliance is always the result of stable lucid 
interval (strikening, clarification, antireflection, Enlightenment ad vitam) for keeps, rather than 
short-time flash of inspiration. The flash of inspiration – short-time and unstable lucid interval – 
does not lead to the change in the structure of consciousness. And the stable lucid interval 
(strikening, clarification, antireflection, Enlightenment ad vitam) for keeps always expands 
consciousness and changes its structure for keeps); 
  (b) the space around me was full of prompts, ideas. As a result of this experience, my 
consciousness (mind) was changed: I found a calm, stable self-reliance (independent of the opinions 
and relations of colleagues), i.e., I found the sensation of support which proceeded from the 
Supreme Intellect (Mind) surrounding me. Finally, I understood the essence of errors in Einstein’s 
papers and in the papers of other classics of theoretical physics. I wrote series of the critical articles 
which was published in the peer-rewired journals. Then the classics of physics became my friends! 
 So I became indifferent to the critical (i.e., incompetent) opinions and high-profile titles of 
colleagues. Thus, I found steady faith in myself, i.e., I found my “Ego”. 

Finding of my “Ego” impelled me to consider the part of the passed way of cognition in the 
deductive point of view. As is known, the inductive method of cognition does not allow reliably 
predict, explain the future events because the “future events” are not a simple consequence of the 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

166 

 

“present events”. In the deductive point of view, the past “facts of biography” of the person are a 
consequence of the future “facts of biography” destined (intended) by the Supreme Intellect (Mind): 
destination is primary, and the “facts of biography” are secondary. So, I realized that my destiny 
and my “Ego” are inseparably connected with the existence of the Supreme Intellect (Mind), are 
determined by the Supreme Intellect (Mind), and relied on the Supreme Intellect (Mind). Reasoning 
in this way, I subsequently guessed right the theorem of existence of God. I expended several years 
to prove the theorem. The definition of the concept of “God” given by Isaac Newton in his work, 
“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, had an influence on my choice of method of 
proof. But the essence of the creative process is inscrutable, unfathomable one. Creation is a riddle, 
a mystery. There is no solution to this mystery!  
 However, the result of the creative activity can be easily tested (verified) by scientists. 
Example of the creative solution of the Euclid's V-th postulate is as follows (T.Z. Kalanov, 2011a). 
As is well known, the triangle is one of the most important figures in geometry and trigonometry. 
This figure as a material system can be constructed and studied as follows. 
1. The triangle is constructed as is follows. If the sides of the angle are bound up with the rectilinear 
segment, then the synthesized system (the constructed geometrical figure) AOB  is called triangle 
(Figure 1).  
 
 

 
Figure 1. Geometrical figure "right triangle" as a material system. Points are universal joints. 

 
 Three points O, A and B are called vertexes of triangle. The rectilinear segments a, b and c  
bounded (bordered) by vertexes are called legs of triangle AOB . Triangle as a material system 
does not exist if length of any leg is equal to zero. Existence of interior angles  ,  ,   of triangle 
leads to rise of the essential property (feature, parameter) of system: the sum  S . The 
problem of value of the sum S  is the essence of the problem of Euclid's V-th postulate. Value of S  
can be determined only by means of experimental investigation of properties of triangle as a 
material system. 
 2. The experimental device for determination of value S  represents the following material 
design: material triangle AOB  which has vertexes O , A , B   as joints. The joints give 
opportunity to change the following characteristics of triangle: values of quantities  ,  ,   of 
angles and lengths of legs a , b , c  of the triangle under the condition that 0a , 0b , 0c . 
 In other words, joints give an opportunity of structural (“internal”) movement of triangle 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

167 

 

(i.e., transitions from some structural states into others). (By definition, the structural movement of 
the system is the conservation of the basic properties of the system under various internal and 
external changes). 
 Structural movement of triangle is reduced to two elementary movements of its legs: to the 
“shift along a straight line” and to the “rotation around a point”). Statement of the problem of 
Euclid’s V-th postulate is as follows: it is necessary to show experimentally that  180S  and this 
property of a triangle (as a system) does not depend on properties of elements of a triangle.  In other 
words, it is necessary to show that S  is the invariant of the structural movement of a triangle.  
 The result of the experiment is as follows (T.Z. Kalanov, 1995a): 
(a) if the quantity   is subject to change, then this change leads to a change quantities   and  ;  

 1800  ;   1800  ;  1800  ; 
(b) if   0 , then  180 ; 
(c) if   180 , then  0 ; 
(d)    1800  ; 
(e) area (as a variable) is not the essential feature of triangle; 
(f) lengths of legs a , b , c  of triangle are not equal to zero. In other words, unlike reasoning of 
A.M. Legendre, it is not assumed in this experiment that “legs of triangle increase infinitely” (N. 
Lobachevski).  
 Therefore, it is possible “to conclude from this that approaching of opposite legs to the third 
side under decrease of two angles is necessarily finished with transmutation of other angle into two 
right angles” (N. Lobachevski). This result of the experiment signifies that quantity S  represents 
the sum of the adjacent angles   and    . Hence,  180S . Thus, Euclid’s V-th postulate (or 
the axiom V in the list of Hilbert’s axioms) is proven. Consequence is as follows: the list of 
 Hilbert’s axioms is incomplete because it does not contain the definition of concept of 
triangle; therefore, axiom V is not a logical consequence of axioms I-IV. (In other words, the 
properties of the triangle can be learned only if the triangle has already been constructed (i.e., if the 
triangle is defined in the list of axioms). Therefore, the property (  180S ) of the triangle AOB  
as the system is not a logical consequence of the property of the angle AOB ). 
 Thus, the experimental study of the properties of a triangle as a material system gave me an 
opportunity to prove Euclid’s V-th postulate. However, I don’t know Who (or what the Essence) led 
me in this way. What is this Essence? 
 
 6. Discussions 
 In my opinion, the problem of the creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial 
General Intelligence (AGI) is a problem of modeling Human Intellect (Human Mind, thought). The 
scientific problems must be researched within the framework of the correct methodological basis: 
the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. The criterion of truth is practice. And practice is 
a starting point of any correct theory. 
 1. As is known, the practical (empirical) facts are as follows: 
  (a) man enters into the comatose state if his consciousness is completely blocked. This signifies 
that thinking does not work without consciousness; 
  (b) man (i.e., the physiological body) dies (i.e., breathing and heart functions are ceased) if his 
subconsciousness is completely blocked (i.e., if the connection between the subconsciousness and 
the physiological body is disrupted). This signifies that the subconsciousness of the living man 
always works. Thus, life and a thinking (thought) cannot exist without the subconsciousness and the 
physiological body; 
  (c) man becomes a bio-robot (biological robot, in the narrow sense of the word) if its 
subconsciousness is not completely blocked. This signifies that a thinking works in a narrow, 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

168 

 

restricted, limited range. Bio-robots can eat, drink, talk, cry, laugh, work, and carry out simple 
orders, commands within the framework of the patterns of behavior, which is contained in his 
consciousness. But bio-robot cannot think critically and create. Thus, the thinking is an essential 
property (i.e., an essential feature, attribute) of the system “subconsciousness + consciousness”. The 
creative thinking does not exist without the subconsciousness; 
  (d) research of hypnotic and meditative states proves the existence of a complex structure of the 
subconsciousness; the structure of the subconsciousness, probably, cannot be cognized;    
  (e) the consciousness has a complex architecture, and it can be in several states: active, passive, 
and intermediate states. Each state of consciousness characterizes a certain state of the system 
“subconsciousness + consciousness” and a certain condition (mode, regime) of interaction between 
the subconsciousness and the consciousness. The consciousness in the active state operates in 
selective mode (regime): the consciousness censors and filters the incoming information (if 
information comes slowly). The consciousness in the passive state (i.e., in a sleepy or a hypnotic 
state) does not choose, does not select, does not censor, does not filter the incoming information. In 
this case, the information coming from the outside is acquired without resistance by the 
consciousness. This circumstance is used in practice of psychological (particularly, 
psycholinguistic) programming (coding) of the consciousness of the man; 
  (f) the psychological (psycholinguistic, in particular) programming (psycholinguistic programming 
(coding)) of the consciousness of man forms new rules (schemes, instructions) of behavior (actions) 
of man. The new rules (schemes, instructions) are retained (maintained, conserved) in the 
consciousness and taken into account by the subconsciousness up to a certain moment until a 
programmer or subconsciousness does not change the rules. Psychological programming of the 
consciousness of man is an effective means to stimulate mental activity. However, psychological 
programming of the consciousness of man is not an effective means to stimulate creative activity; 
  (g) the means of the increase of effectiveness of activities of the creative people is formation of a 
powerful incentive, formation of a special environment (surroundings) and of existence conditions. 
The history of sciences and my experience show that the creative activity of man is highly 
dependent on the specificity of incentive (stimulus). The comfort (comfortable) conditions of life 
and the pursuit of comfort (comfortable) conditions of life are not a necessary and sufficient 
condition for the effectiveness of scientific creativity. The comfort (comfortable) conditions of life 
give rise to the “corporative science”: the “science” of conservation of comfort (comfortable) 
conditions of life of the scientist. The comfort (comfortable) conditions of life do not stimulate the 
search for scientific truth. 
 2. As is known from the history of sciences, the search for scientific truth – as the aspiration 
for a vital-essential aim (goal) – is the true sense (content, meaning) of life and of activity of a 
creative man. The search for scientific truth is possible if and only if the scientific community raises 
the truth (but not man!) on the pedestal (podium), if the search for the truth becomes a vital 
necessity and sense (content, meaning) of the life of a scientist. In this case, the scientific 
community also gives opportunity to scientists for open criticism of whatever scientific work. The 
possibility of public discussion and of criticism is an important condition for the existence of 
sciences, for the development of sciences, and for the increase of effectiveness of activities of the 
creative scientists. Another important condition is the search for and selection of independent 
researchers. The independently thinking researchers can go against the current, striving for truth. 
The scientists of geniuses were and are always the independently thinking researchers.  
 3. Can a computer think? Can a computer replace the creative man? To answer these 
questions, one must compare man (in particular, the creative man) with a computer. In concordance 
with formal logic, the comparison can be made if man and a computer have common certain aspect. 
 It is clear that the essences of man and a computer are absolutely different. However, the 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

169 

 

certain manifestations of the essences can be similar and comparable with each other. Obviously, 
the ability to process information and perform computations is the common aspect of the 
manifestations of the essences of man and of a computer.  
  (a) As is known, “a computer is a general-purpose electronic device that must be programmed to 
carry out a set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically (without human intervention). Since 
a sequence of operations can be readily changed, the computer can solve more than one kind of 
problem. The principle of the modern computer was first described by mathematician and 
pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing, who set out the idea in his seminal 1936 paper, “On 
computable numbers”.  
 Conventionally, a computer consists of at least one processing element, typically a central 
processing unit (CPU), and some form of memory. The processing element carries out arithmetic 
and logic operations, and a sequencing and control unit can change the order of operations in 
response to stored information. Peripheral devices allow information to be retrieved from an 
external source, and the result of operations saved and retrieved. 
 The defining feature of modern computers which distinguishes them from all other machines 
is that they can be programmed. That is to say that some type of instructions (the program) can be 
given to the computer and it will process them. Modern computers based on the von Neumann 
architecture often have machine code in the form of an imperative programming language. 
 Computer programming (coding) is a process that leads from an original formulation of a 
computing problem to executable computer programs. Programming involves activities such as 
analysis, developing understanding, generating algorithms, verification of requirements of 
algorithms including their correctness and resources consumption, and implementation (commonly 
referred to as coding) of algorithms in a target programming language. Source code is written in one 
or more programming languages. The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions 
that will automate performing a specific task or solving a given problem. The process of 
programming thus often requires expertise in many different subjects, including knowledge of the 
application domain, specialized algorithms and formal logic. 
 The synthesis of numerical calculation, predetermined operation and output, along with a 
way to organize and input instructions in a manner relatively easy for humans to conceive and 
produce, led to the modern development of computer programming. Computer programmers are 
those who write computer software. Their jobs usually involve: coding, debugging, documentation, 
integration, maintenance, requirements analysis, software architecture, software testing, and 
specification. 
 A computer will solve problems in exactly the way it is programmed to, without regard to 
efficiency, alternative solutions, possible shortcuts, or possible errors in the code. Computer 
programs that learn and adapt are part of the emerging field of artificial intelligence and machine 
learning” (from Wikipedia); 
  (b) A programmer and a computer represent the system: “programmer + computer”. Mutual 
connection between the programmer and the computer is that a work of programmer depends on the 
features (possibilities) and operation of the computer, and the operation (work) of the computer is 
dependent on the features (possibilities) and operation of the programmer. But elements of the 
system “programmer + computer” are not equisignificant (equivalent, interchangeable) ones. There 
is the following dialectical relation between the elements: the “programmer” is a controlling 
element (aspect), and the “computer” is a controllable element (aspect). An essential feature (i.e., 
essence) of the system “programmer + computer” is a data-processing property. 
  (c) “Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also the 
name of the academic field of study which studies how to create computers and computer software 
that are capable of intelligent behavior. Major AI researchers and textbooks define this field as “the 
study and design of intelligent agents”, in which an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

170 

 

environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success. John McCarthy, who coined 
the term in 1955, defines it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”. 
 AI research is highly technical and specialized, and is deeply divided into subfields that 
often fail to communicate with each other. Some of the division is due to social and cultural factors: 
subfields have grown up around particular institutions and the work of individual researchers. AI 
research is also divided by several technical issues. Some subfields focus on the solution of specific 
problems. Others focus on one of several possible approaches or on the use of a particular tool or 
towards the accomplishment of particular applications. 
 The central problems (or goals) of AI research include reasoning, knowledge, planning, 
learning, natural language processing (communication), perception and the ability to move and 
manipulate objects. General intelligence is still among the field’s long-term goals. Currently, 
popular approaches include statistical methods, computational intelligence and traditional symbolic 
 AI. There are a large number of tools used in AI, including versions of search and 
mathematical optimization, logic, methods based on probability and economics, and many others. 
 The AI field is interdisciplinary, in which a number of sciences and professions converge, 
including computer science, mathematics, psychology, linguistics, philosophy and neuroscience, as 
well as other specialized fields such as artificial psychology. 
 The field was founded on the claim that a central property of humans, human intelligence – 
the sapience of Homo sapiens – “can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to 
simulate it”. This raises philosophical issues about the nature of the mind and the ethics of creating 
artificial beings endowed with human-like intelligence, issues which have been addressed by myth, 
fiction and philosophy since antiquity. Artificial intelligence has been the subject of tremendous 
optimism but has also suffered stunning setbacks. Today it has become an essential part of the 
technology industry, providing the heavy lifting for many of the most challenging problems in 
computer science” (Wikipedia).  
 “There are different approaches to understanding the problem of Artificial Intelligence. 
Members of the Russian Association of Artificial Intelligence give the following definitions of 
Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence is: 
(1) the scientific direction which is aimed at solving tasks of hardware or software modeling 
(simulation) of the intellectual aspects of human activities; 
(2) the property of the intellectual systems to perform creative functions which are traditionally 
considered as the prerogative of man; 
(3) the set (complex) of computer sciences which are the basis of information technology. The task 
of this science is the reconstruction of rational reasoning and actions with the help of computer 
systems and other artificial devices. 
 One of the definitions of intelligence, which is common for both man and “machine”, can be 
formulated as follows: intelligence is the ability of the system to create programs (in the first place, 
heuristic programs) in the course of self-instruction in order to solve the problems of certain class of 
the complexity 
 However, there is no single (uniform, standard) response to the following questions: What is 
the Artificial Intelligence? What is the criterion of “reasonableness” of computers? What are the 
boundaries of potential (ability) of computers? Does the level of human development will be 
reached by a machine? Almost every one of the authors, who write about the problem of AI, 
proceeds from some definition characterizing achievements in a certain (special-scientific) fields of 
sciences. But there is no general-scientific (philosophical) definition of AI because the problem of 
the nature and of the status of the human intellect has no been solved in philosophy until now” 
(Russian Wikipedia).  



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

171 

 

 4. The quotations from Wikipedia show that development of a computer represents a change 
in quantitative certainty of a computer. But the quantitative determinacy (i.e., the essence) of the 
computer is not changed in the evolvement. The essence of the computer as an electronic (or 
biological) device is characterized only by the informational-computational aspect. 
Common aspect of man and of computer is a property (ability) to operate with information and to 
perform calculations. The informational-computational property is a special property. And thinking 
(thought) is a common property which includes the informational-computational property. 
Consequently, in accordance with the formal logic, thinking (thought) and calculation are not 
identical properties (features). The relation of partial coincidence exists between the concepts of 
“thinking (thought)” and “calculation”: (1) the existence of thinking (as common feature, as the 
essence) is cause of the existence of computational property (as special feature); (2) the existence of 
computational property (as special feature) does not set conditions for the existence of thinking (as 
common feature, as the essence). 
 A programmer as a creative man can create computer programs only for the processes that 
he understands. A computer cannot carry out the instructions which are not described in detail by 
the programmer. Therefore, limit of the development of the system “programmer + computer” is 
determined by the limit of the development of the programmer. The programmer as man will never 
be able to model the thinking and to create an algorithm for creation because: (a) man cannot 
cognize the essential properties of the complete system “physiological body + psychical body + 
environment”; (b) the creative process is not amenable to rational analysis. (In the eminent 
physiologist Professor N.P. Bechtereva’s opinion, intercomparison of brain and computer is a 
inadmissible mental operation because brain and computer have different qualitative determinacy). 
 This signifies that the problem of the creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial 
General Intelligence (AGI) as a problem of computer simulation (modeling) of the human thinking 
(thought) has no positive solution. 
 Creating of AI and of AGI is impossible because: (1) the mechanism of operation (action) of 
the system “subconsciousness + consciousness” (underlying of thinking) cannot be cognized 
(learned, understood) by man; (2) a computer as a device cannot think because it has no the system 
the system “subconsciousness + consciousness”. Thinking is an inseparable, integral and essential 
property (feature) of the system “physiological body + psychical body”; (3) modeling of 
manifestation of the essence (i.e., thinking) of man does not signify modeling of the essence (i.e., 
thinking) of man because a manifestation of the essence is not identical with the essence; (4) 
modeling of manifestation of the essence is imitation (simulation) of manifestation of the essence; 
(5) the imitation (simulation) of manifestation of the essence does not lead to origination 
(appearance) of essence (i.e., thinking, thought); (6) there is no practical proof (evidence) of the 
existence of AI and AGI in the world; (7) in order that a computer can solve scientific (i.e., human) 
problems, a computer must have the qualitative determinacy of man. In other words, a computer 
and man must be identical to each other, must have identical essential features. Therefore, the 
problem of creation of AI and AGI is the problem of creation of “man-computer” (i.e., man who is 
a computer or computer which is man). 
 
 Remark 1.  My solution of the P versus NP problem is as follows: there really is no human 
way to generate the creative answer with the help of a computer. Moreover, the works devoted to 
the P versus NP problem, contain the formal-logical error. The error is that the problems in these 
works are divided into classes of complexity. But complexity is not an essential feature (sign) of a 
problem. The feature (sign) of the concept of “complexity” is not the basis (characteristic) of 
division of the concept of problem. The basis (characteristic) of division of the concept of problem 
is the following essential feature (sign): ”solvability”. Therefore, all problems should be divided 
into two classes: the “class of solvable problems” and the “class of non-solvable problems”. If the 
problem statement (formulation) contains formal-logical errors, then the problem belongs to the 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

172 

 

“class of non-solvable problems”. (In this case, there is neither a positive nor a negative solution). If 
the problem statement (formulation) does not contain any formal-logical errors, then the problem 
belongs to the “class of solvable problems”. (In this case, there is either a positive or a negative 
solution). 
 
 Remark 2. My remark on the Millennium Problems, major unsolved problems, is as 
follows. In my opinion, the “seven Millennium Prize Problems selected by the Clay Mathematics 
Institute to carry a US$1,000,000 prize for the first correct solution” cannot be solved. These 
problems belong to the “class of non-solvable problems” because they contain the formal-logical 
and dialectical-materialistic errors. But computer cannot critically analyze (examine) these 
problems and find errors because computer has no the system “subconsciousness + consciousness”, 
and programmer (who has the system “subconsciousness + consciousness”) does not use the correct 
methodological basis of scientific analysis. 
  
 7. Conclusions   
 Thus, the critical analysis of the problem of creation of Artificial Intelligence and of 
Artificial General Intelligence within the framework of the correct methodological basis leads to the 
following results: 
1) intercomparison of man and animal is a necessary step to understanding the essence of thinking 
(thought); 
2) thinking (thought) is an attribute of the complete system: “man + environment”. The subsystem 
“man” represents the unity of the following material aspects: “physiological body + psychic body”. 
The subsystem “psychic body” represents the unity of the following material aspects: 
“subconsciousness + consciousness”; 
3) thinking (thought) is an essential feature of the instinct of conservation (preservation, retention) 
of life. The instinct of conservation (preservation, retention) of life represents the system of the 
main elementary instincts (the feeding (food) instinct, the instinct of reproduction, the instinct of 
activity, the defensive instinct, the adaptability instinct, the instinct of learning and of development. 
The instinct of conservation (preservation) of life exists in the psychical body and manifests itself 
only in the system of “physiological body + psychical body”; 
4) life is the struggle for existence, the struggle for the conservation (preservation, retention) of the 
physiological body. Thinking (thought) is manifested in the appropriate (reasonable, rational, 
sensible) actions aimed at the conservation (preservation, retention) of life and at the creation of 
conditions for life. The criterion of the existence of thinking (thought) is practice; 
5) creation is a process of interaction between the subconsciousness and the consciousness. The 
existence of the system “subconsciousness + consciousness“ is a necessary condition for creativity. 
The existence of the “physiological body” is essential for manifestation of creativity; 
6) the scientific creation is a mysterious, esoteric process of cognition of scientific truth. The 
creation is manifested as a guess (conjecture) in the consciousness. The creation is not accessible 
(not understandable, not available) to analysis and understanding because the mechanism of the 
operation of the subconsciousness and of the system “subconsciousness + consciousness” cannot be 
understood by man; 
7) computer as a device cannot think and create because it has no the system “subconsciousness + 
consciousness”. Modeling (simulation) of manifestation of the essence (i.e., thinking, thought) of 
man does not signify modeling (simulation) of the essence (i.e., thinking, thought) of man. 
Modeling (simulation) of thinking (thought) is imitation of thinking (thought). Imitation of thinking 
(thought) does not lead to the emergence (appearance, origination, existence) of thinking (thought). 
Therefore, the creation of AI and AGI is impossible; 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

173 

 

8) there is no practical proof (evidence) of the existence of AI and of AGI in the world. Also, the 
correct theoretical proof of the existence of AI and of AGI does not exist and cannot exist in science 
because the existence of AI and of AGI contradicts to formal logic and rational dialectics. 
 
 References  
Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical Discovery.  John Wiley & Sonsinc. New York – London. V. I 

(1962), V. II. 
Hadamard, J. (1945). Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Librairie Scientifique. 

Paris. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1991). On the statistics of the electron gas. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of 

the USSR, Vol. 316, No. 6, p. 1386. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1991). On the statistics of the photon gas. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of 

the USSR, Vol. 316, No. 1, p. 100. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1996). Proof of non-correctness of the Lorentz transformation. Reports of the 

Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 1-2 (1996), p. 32. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1997). On the theory of relative motion. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the 
Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 12, p. 15. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1998). On the theory of time. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic 

of Uzbekistan, No. 5 (1998), p. 24. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1995). The correct theoretical analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiments. 

Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 11-12, p. 22. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (2011).  On the critical analysis of classical electrodynamics. Bulletin of the Amer. 

Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 56, No. 4. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (1999). 2cmE  : The most urgent problem of our time. Reports of the Academy of 

Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 5, p. 9. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (2011). Analysis of the problem of relation between geometry and natural sciences. 

Prespacetime Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 75-87. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics: A logical error. Bulletin 

of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). Bose's method: A logical error. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April 

Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 
Kalanov, T. Z. (2001). Correct quantum-statistical description of ideal systems within the 

framework of master equation. Proc. XXVth ICPIG, Nagoya, Japan. Ed. By Toshio Goto / 
Japan: Nagoya Univ., Vol. 3, p. 235.      

Kalanov, T. Z. (2012). Critical analysis of Bose–Einstein and Fermi–Dirac statistics. Elixir 
(Statistics), No. 45, pp. 7657-7659.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2011). Critical analysis of the foundations of differential and integral calculus. 
MCMS (Ada Lovelace Publications), pp. 34-40.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2012). Critical analysis of the foundations of differential and integral calculus. 
International Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.80-84. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. I. 
Foundations of differential and integral calculus. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., (April 
Meeting), Vol. 58, No. 4. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. II. 
Foundations of vector calculus. Unique Journal of Engineering and Advanced Sciences, 
UJEAS, Vol. 01, No. 01. Retreieved from www.ujconline.net.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. II. 
Foundations of vector calculus. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 32 E (Math & 
Stat), No. 2, pp.121-130. 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

174 

 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. II. 
Foundations of vector calculus. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., (April Meeting), Vol. 59, 
No. 5.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. III. 
Pythagorean theorem. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., (April Meeting), Vol. 59, No. 5. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2007). Critical analysis of the special theory of relativity. Bulletin of Pure and 
Applied Sciences, Vol. 26D, No. 1, pp. 1-15. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). Dirac's theory of physical vacuum: Continuation of Bose's logical errors. 
Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (1999). Kinematics of material point: Modern analysis. Reports of the Academy of 
Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 7, p. 9. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2011). Logical analysis of the foundations of differential and integral calculus.  
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 12. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2011). Logical analysis of the foundations of differential and integral calculus. 
Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 30 E (Math. & Stat.), No. 2 (2011), pp. 327-334. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2010). On a new analysis of the foundations of classical mechanics. I. Dynamics. 
Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 55, No. 1. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2009). On a new analysis of the problem of Planck constant. Bulletin of the Amer. 
Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 54, No. 4. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). On a new approach to the solution of the problem of quantization of energy. 
Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2002). On a new basis of quantum theory. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April 
Meeting), Vol. 47, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2005). On a new theory of physical vacuum. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April 
Meeting), Vol. 50, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). On a new theory of the black hole. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April 
Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2003). On a new theory of the system of reference. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. 
(April Meeting), Vol. 48, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2002). On a solution of the problem of unitarization of the elementary principles of 
statistical physics and physical kinetics. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), 
Vol. 47, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2012). On logical error underlying classical mechanics. Bulletin of the Amer. 
Phys. Soc., (April Meeting), Vol. 57, No. 3. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2001). On logical errors lying in the base of special theory of relativity. Bulletin of 
the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 46, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2004). On logical errors underlying the special theory of relativity. Journal of 
Theoretics (USA). Vol. 6-1. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2012). On rationalization of the foundations of differential calculus. Bulletin of 
Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 31 E (Math. & Stat.), No. 1, pp. 1-7.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2010). On the Boltzmann distribution. Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 21, Special 
Issues 1, p. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). On the correct analysis of Maxwell distribution. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. 
Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2007). On the correct analysis of the foundations of the special theory of relativity. 
Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 52, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2007). On the correct analysis of the foundations of theoretical physics. Bulletin of 
the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 52, No. 2. 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

175 

 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). On the correct formulation of the first law of thermodynamics. Bulletin of 
the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2005). On the correct theoretical analysis of the foundations of quantum 
mechanics. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 50, No. 2, p. 65. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2003). On the essence of space. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), 
Vol. 48, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2002). On the essence of time. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), 
Vol. 47, No. 2, p. 164. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2007). On the hypothesis of control of the Universe. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. 
Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 52, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). On the hypothesis of Universe's "system block". Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. 
Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). On the logical analysis of the foundations of vector calculus. International 
Journal of Scientific Knowledge. Computing and Information Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 
25-30.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). On the logical analysis of the foundations of vector calculus. International 
Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research, Vol. 1, No. 3. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). On the logical analysis of the foundations of vector calculus. Journal of 
Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 202-321.                               

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). On the logical analysis of the foundations of vector calculus. Journal of 
Research in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ISTP-JREEE). ISSN: 2321-2667, Vol. 2, 
No. 5, pp. 1-5.                                 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). On the logical analysis of the foundations of vector calculus. Research Desk, 
(ISSN: 2319-7315), Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.  249-259. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). On the logical analysis of the foundations of vector calculus. Aryabhatta 
Journal of Mathematics & Informatics. ISSN: 0975-7139, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 227-234. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2002). On the main errors underlying statistical physics. Bulletin of the Amer. 
Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 47, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2003). On the problem of knowledge of the Universe. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. 
Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 48, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2003). On the problem of the correspondence principle. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. 
Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 48, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). On the system analysis of the foundations of trigonometry. Journal of 
Physics & Astronomy, (www.mehtapress.com), Vol. 3, No. 1. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). On the system analysis of the foundations of trigonometry. International 
Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research, IJIFR, Vol. 1, No. 6. Retrieved from 
www.ijifr.com. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). On the system analysis of the foundations of trigonometry. International 
Journal of Science Inventions Today, IJSIT, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 119-147. Retrieved from 
www.ijsit.com.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). On the system analysis of the foundations of trigonometry. Pure and Applied 
Mathematics Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 26-39.   

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). On the system analysis of the foundations of trigonometry. Bulletin of Pure 
and Applied Sciences, Vol. 33E (Math & Stat), No. 1, pp. 1-27. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2012). The Boltzmann distribution: a logical error. Elixir (Adv. Pow.), No 49, pp. 
9935-9936.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2012). The correct analysis of theory of photon gas. Elixir (Nuclear & Radiation 
Physics), No. 50, pp. 10197-10205. 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

176 

 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2004). The correct theoretical analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics. 
Journal of Ultra Scientists of Physical Sciences (International Journal of Physical Sciences, 
India), Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 191-198. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2007). The correct theoretical analysis of the foundations of classical 
thermodynamics. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 26D, No. 2, pp. 109-118. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2009). The correct theoretical analysis of the foundations of classical 
thermodynamics. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 12-17. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2009). The correct theory of photon gas. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-10. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2010). The crisis in theoretical physics: The problem of scientific truth. 
Prespacetime Journal, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 824-842. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2010). The critical analysis of the foundations of theoretical physics. Crisis in 
theoretical physics: The problem of scientific truth. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 
978-3-8433-6367-9. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). The critical analysis of the Pythagorean theorem and of the problem of 
irrational numbers. Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review, ISSN 2315-
6872, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 59-65. Retrieved from http//www.basicresearchjournals.org. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). The critical analysis of the Pythagorean theorem and of the problem of 
irrational numbers. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 32 (Math & Stat),  No. 1, pp. 
1-12. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). The critical analysis of the Pythagorean theorem and of the problem of 
irrational numbers. Global Journal of Advanced Research on Classical and Modern 
Geometries, ISSN: 2284-5569, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 59-68.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). The foundations of vector calculus: The logical error in mathematics and 
theoretical physics. Unique Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 054-059. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2013). The logical analysis of the Pythagorean theorem and of the problem of 
irrational numbers. Asian Journal of Mathematics and Physics, ISSN 2308-3131, Vol. 2013, 
pp. 1-12. Retrieved from http://scienceasia.asia. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2010). The modern analysis of the problem of multisecting an angle. Prespacetime 
Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 468-474. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). The problem of the SETI: A methodological error in cosmology and 
astrophysics. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2006). The second law of thermodynamics: Mathematical error. Bulletin of the 
Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 51, No. 2, p. 60. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2010). The theoretical model of God: Proof of the existence and the uniqueness of 
God. Scientific GOD Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 85-97. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2003). The theory of relativity: An error of the transformation of coordinates. 
Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 48, No. 2.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2009). Theoretical model of God: proof of existence.   Indian Journal of Science 
and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 80-88. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2007). Theoretical model of God: The key to correct exploration of the Universe. 
Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 52, No. 2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2016). Critical analysis of the foundations of pure mathematics. Mathematics and 
Statistics CRESCO, V. 2, No. 1, pp. 2-14. Retrieved from http://crescopublications.org.    

Kalanov, T. Z. (2016). Critical analysis of the foundations of pure mathematics. International 
Journal for Research in Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 15-33.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2016). Critical analysis of the foundations of pure mathematics. Aryabhatta Journal 
of Mathematics & Informatics, V. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-14 (Article Number: MSOA-2-005). 



T. Z. Kalanov - Man versus Computer: Difference of the Essences. The Problem of the Scientific Creation 
 

177 

 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). Critical analysis of the foundations of the theory of negative number. 
International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research (IJIFR, www.ijifr.com), Vol. 2, 
No. 4, pp. 1132-1143. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2015). Critical analysis of the foundations of the theory of negative numbers. 
International Journal of Current Research in Science and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-12. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2015). Critical analysis of the foundations of the theory of negative numbers. 
Aryabhatta Journal of Mathematics & Informatics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-12. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2015). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. IV. 
Foundations of trigonometry. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., (April Meeting), Vol. 60, No. 
4. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2015). Critical analysis of the mathematical formalism of theoretical physics. V. 
Foundations of the theory of negative numbers. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc., (April 
Meeting), Vol. 60, No. 4. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2016). On the correct formulation of the law of the external photoelectric effect. 
Journal of Review in Sciences, No. 1, pp. 1–9.  

Kalanov, T. Z. (2016). On the formal-logical analysis of the foundations of mathematics applied to 
problems in physics. Bulletin of the Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting). 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2015). On the formal–logical analysis of the foundations of mathematics applied to 
problems in physics. Aryabhatta Journal of Mathematics & Informatics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-2. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2015). Where are the logical errors in the theory of Big Bang?. Bulletin of the 
Amer. Phys. Soc. (April Meeting), Vol. 60, No. 4. 

Kalanov, T. Z. (2014). Where are the logical errors in the theory of Big Bang?. Scientific GOD 
Journal, Vol. 5, No. 5, p. 432-433. 

The Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence                       
(ICAI'16), July 25-28, 2016. Monte Carlo Resort, Las Vegas, USA.           

 
 

Temur Z. Kalanov was born in Tashkent (Uzbekistan), in 1944. In 1968 he 
graduated from the Department of Engineering Physics at the Tashkent 
Polytechnic Institute and achieved the degree of M.Sc. in Engineering Physics. In 
1968-1971 he was postgraduate at the Institute of Electronics (Academy of 
Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan) by the speciality of “Physical Electronics, 
Including Quantum Electronics”. In 1971-1981 he worked as Junior Research 
Scientist of the Theoretical Sector at the Institute of Electronics. In 1979 he 
defended Ph.D. thesis on “Vibrational relaxation in the gas systems with sources 

of the vibrationally excited molecules” at the Physical-Technical Institute. In 1981-2004 he was 
Senior Research Scientist at the Theoretical Sector of the Institute of Electronics. Working at the 
Institute of Electronics as Senior Research Scientist, he wrote a series of original works. His 
pioneering works on the critical analysis of the foundations of statistical physics were published in 
the “Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan” and “Reports of the 
Academy of Sciences of the USSR”. In 1993 he presented his doctoral dissertation on the following 
subject: “The correct quantum-statistical description of ideal systems within the framework of the 
master equation” (by the speciality of “Theoretical Physics”). Between 1995 and 1999, his 
pioneering works devoted to the critical analysis of the Larmor-Lorentz-Poincare-Einstein special 
theory of relativity were published in peer-reviewed journals. Between 2007 and 2009, his 
pioneering works on the critical analysis of the foundations of classical thermodynamics were 
published in peer-reviewed journals.  

6. In 2007-2009 I constructed the theoretical model of God and proved the existence and 
uniqueness of God. The results were published in the peer-reviewed journals. 



BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 
Volume 8, Issue 2, July 2017, ISSN 2067-3957 (online), ISSN 2068-0473 (print) 
 

178 

 

Subsequently, he worked on important problems, like critical analysis of the theory of Big 
Bang; the foundation of the differential and integral calculus; the foundations of geometry, vector 
calculus etc. and his relevant articles were published in peer-reviewed journals. 

Since 2004, he is independent researcher (“Home of Physical Problems”), working on the 
following problems: the critical analysis of the foundations of theoretical physics, of mathematics, 
and of philosophy. He carry out the analysis within the framework of the correct methodological 
basis: the unity of formal logic and rational dialectics.