--Title：The Intentionality of Intelligent Machines and Physical Model of the "Problem of Other Minds"

    --Abstract--

Many people think that artificial intelligence machines are likely to develop consciousness, intention or will, it is possible to spontaneously generate actions that are hostile to humans. In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the possibility of such result on Earth in a limited time is very small. The purpose of this article is to dispel this fear of the development of artificial intelligence.

The first focus of the following work is to define and analyse the difference between "intentionality" in the phenomenology of philosophy and "intention" in human activities. Further, it describes the extensive process from the most primitive microorganism on the Earth to human beings who have the capability of mental activity such as "intention" and "purpose". In addition, the work explains the philosophical annoyance of the "problem of other minds" by means of a physical model.

The universe, human brain and the microcosm are classified as three unknown areas of equal difficulty for human beings to comprehend. According to the law of large numbers in mathematics, the probability is highest that, the Earth is not the sole planet in the universe inhabited by intelligent creatures, and the intelligence level of human beings is in the middle of each intelligence level in the universe.

The following work logically proves the existence of a problem that human intelligence cannot answer. Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis, understanding of human mental activities may become a further area of investigation and one which is difficult for human intelligence to understand. Accordingly, the author provides the answers to basic questions which relate to artificial intelligence philosophy.

Keywords: consciousness, intelligent creature, other minds, artificial intelligence.

Recently, news such as Alphago defeating top human players and the auto-driving tests have resulted in a new round of artificial intelligence gripping the world. While people are imagining the benefits that artificial intelligence technology can bring to human beings, they are concerned with the possible damage caused by this new and advanced technology. Even Hawking, who was an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author and a director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge, raised a warning to mankind. In fact, the point of contention as to whether new technologies will cause extensive damage to human beings is no longer a new topic for discussion. The vast effects of automation, atomic energy, genetic engineering and other technologies have been thoroughly analysed and the results are conclusive. It is ascertained that only when human’s improper control of development, production and usage of automation, atomic energy, genetic engineering and other technological devises undeniably result in widespread damage. The products of these technologies themselves do not have the "intention" to be enemies of human beings.

However, assuming that the artificial intelligent machines are likely to develop consciousness, intention or will, it is possible to spontaneously generate actions that are hostile to humans. The point is, is this assumption established? The author's opinion is that this assumption is not established. The purpose of writing this article is to dispel this fear of the development of artificial intelligence.

I. Intentionality of intelligent machines

Until today, all artificial intelligent machines are unconscious and void of mental activity. This is agreed by both side of scholars who advocate for or against the assumption. The academic community likes to use the word "intentionality." Whether they are general researchers or famous scientists, they all state that "the greatest feature of the human brain is intentionality". However, there is the continuing debate relating to whether "computer or artificial intelligence can be like the human brain in that it is capable of having intentional and subjective intelligence".（Zheng, 2005).

Essentially, the term "intentionality" must be clarified. In the phenomenology of philosophy, "the central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object." （ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy （2003）） All human being’s consciousness points to the object. It is to be noted that the “intentionality” in this sense should not be related to “intention”, “purpose” or "planning" of human actions. In fact, an area of enquiry is that "the human brain is intentional carrying out intelligent activities", "so far, intelligent machines made by humans do not have their own intentions". This "intention" is not "intentionality" in philosophical phenomenology.

From the history of biological evolution, the emergence of "intentions" from the most primitive microorganisms to higher animals is a long process of evolution throughout billions of years. According to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, "the survival of the fittest", the intention of any creatures focuses on the survival of the individual and the reproduction of the species. Failure to execute the principles of the theory result in the inevitable extinction of the individual creature and in wider terms, the entire species. "Intention" is an activity of consciousness. There is no conscious activity before the creature’s brain evolves, thus there is no intention.

In order to understand the essential difference between humans with mental activity and artificial intelligence systems without mental activity, we need a brief study of the process of human beings acquiring the ability of mental activity in the history of biological evolution on the Earth.

The process of development of primitive cells to the final emergence of human beings on the Earth, has taken billions of years. The ultimate result of biological evolution is the emergence of the mental world. All natural creatures can not only feel, perceive and recognize the nature that produces it, but also have the consciousness of "self" existence. Further, there are the emotions joy and anger, as well as the facets of self-will, thought and the ability to reform nature. How do these fascinating features appear?

The first threshold to the creation of a mental world is the transformation from an inanimate world to one with life. The second threshold is a process where life evolves from that a state of affairs where there is no feeling, perception and consciousness of "self" existence, into one where there is feeling, perception and consciousness of "self" existence. It can be stated that the mental world is the product of the human brain which is the highest stage of the development of the nervous system.

Following is a brief investigation of the evolution of the nervous system, focusing on two vital components: the emergence of pain (the most basic feeling) and thought.

We are aware of the fact that when creatures have evolved into coelenterates the original nervous system began to appear. On the body wall of hydra and anemones, there are neurosecretory cells, neurosensory cells, and ganglion cells differentiated from mesenchymal cells. (Zhou,2004). These cells have two or more long protrusions called the axons. The axons are connected to each other via synapses to form a neural network, that is the nervous system. However, the nerve network is fundamentally a network wall covering the body, and no central system is formed. When it comes to the platyhelminth, the central nervous system begins to appear. The head of the animal concentrates a considerable number of nerve cells, forming a distinct brain. Further, when the annelids appear, the nervous system has been further developed. A special part related to the sensation has been differentiated from the brain. We estimate that animals begin to feel at this stage of evolution.

To the vertebrate, while the centralization of the nervous system is further developed, the peripheral nervous system is also fully developed, and the autonomic nervous system appears. The development of the head is more obvious, and the structure and function of the brain have become sophisticated and greatly improved. The brain of the vertebrate is located in the cranial cavity and the spinal cord is found in the spinal canal. The resulting human central nervous system is like a huge information processor. The result of processing can be a reflex activity, producing feeling or memories, as well as all the mental activity of the human brain. (Chen,2004 and Xu,2004).

The fundamental element of mental activity is "feeling". The first primary feeling is pain, which is the most basic signal that creatures have to avoid in order to survive. The neurological anatomy shows the pain nerve located in the center of the most conservative part of the spinal cord. When human beings are stimulated by the outside world, they can report the feeling caused by the stimulus to the observer, whereas the animal cannot report their feelings to humans.

However, it is believed that more advanced animals should have "feeling", which can only be judged from the behavior of these animals when stimulated by the outside world. Furthermore, even if a creature responds to an external stimulus, humans cannot conclude that the creature has "feeling". For example, a single-cell protozoan eye worm with the simplest photosensitive organ has an eye point that allows the eye worm to move along the direction of the phototaxis.(Yang, 2005). In addition, E. coli has a chase or evade behavior for a variety of compounds, and this behavior involves three steps: compound recognition, signal input, and movement using flagella. (Geng,2004). In addition, some plants also have stimulus-response and can do mechanical movements, such as the flower of the water lily opening at day and closing at night, or the compound leaves of the acacia closing in the evening. For the mimosa and the nepenthes of carnivorous plant, the mechanical movements are more rapid. (Yin, 2004). But eye worms, E. coli and plants cannot be said to have "feeling".

We can design an artificial intelligence system that performs very complex processing calculations on different stimulus while making extremely complex reactions, but the artificial intelligence system, similar to the aforementioned plants, would still have no "feeling". This is because the stimulus-response of artificial intelligence systems is at most at the level of eye worms, E. coli and plants.

From "feeling" to thought, a creature must go through stages of perception, presentation and conception. Finally, creatures use language as a tool to think and form intention or will. Intention or will is the psychological process by which people consciously, purposefully, and systematically regulate and control their actions. (Guo, 2004, Wang, 2004 and Wu, 2004). The origin of thought may be assumed between birds and insects, but this requires scientific research. The animals that need to be studied are probably reptiles and amphibians, together with birds and insects, in order to determine where the most primitive forms of thinking occur in one or two levels of animals. If we can be sure of the most primitive form of thinking in which the earliest level of animals, we can also be sure that consciousness originated in this class of animals.( Pan, 2004).

The motivation of human action is to ensure survival and to meet various needs. "Ensuring survival and meeting various needs" is a high-level rational thought activity performed by human beings. Animals that are less advanced than humans may not possess this capability. Yet, natural selection results in providing humans and animals with the pleasure of eating when they satisfy their appetites, the pleasure of sexual desire when they are satisfying their mating needs consequently rewarding the survival of the individual and the reproduction of the species. This is unlike simpler creatures, such as the phototaxis movement of the single-cell protozoan eye worm, E. coli's chase or evade behavior in response to the stimulus of various compounds, which are the results of random genetic drift and natural selection based on "survival of the fittest".

II. The Physical Model of - The Problem Of Other Minds

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014)), "The problem of other minds is the problem of how to justify the almost universal belief that others have minds very like our own. It is one of the hallowed, if nowadays unfashionable, problems in philosophy. Various solutions to the problem are on offer. It is noteworthy that so many are on offer. Even more noteworthy is that none of the solutions on offer can plausibly lay claim to enjoying majority support."

Primarily, the outside world is not the colorful things we see, nor the songs of birds we hear and fragrance of flowers we smell that is, it is not what we feel. Secondly, different individuals don't feel the same when the same external stimulus occur, our "feeling" cannot provide objective proof except that we can describe our own experience with subjective descriptions.

Firstly, humans are aware that visible light is only a narrow band between 4000 and 7000 angstrom in electromagnetic waves. The red color we see is electromagnetic waves between 6470 to 7000 angstroms in wavelength; the purple color we see is the electromagnetic wave between 4000 to 4240 angstroms. The difference between red and purple is only the difference in wavelength. The red wavelength is longer and the purple wavelength is shorter. And "red" and "purple" are just our subjective feelings.

The objects around us reflect electromagnetic waves of varying wavelengths into our eyes, we can't see the light with wavelengths longer than red and shorter than purple. For the visible light from 4000 to 7000 angstroms, the subjective feeling of the person is colored by seven colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and purple. This is like black and white movies and color movies. We know that many of the best Hollywood films in the 1930s and 1940s were black and white. Recently, there is a process that can "dye" black and white movies into color, but it is expensive. In fact, the world we see is not only not colorful, but even light and darkness is just a subjective feeling.

On dark nights, high-sensitivity infrared cameras can be used to capture the image of many infrared-emitting objects. In other words, the "colored" world we have seen is actually just different objects in the world outside us, reflecting or radiating electromagnetic waves of different wavelengths. There is no color at all, and there is no light and darkness. In the same way, the various sounds we hear are only a certain wavelength of sound waves (the air molecules are oscillated in the form of longitudinal waves) accepted by the human ear, causing a feeling in the brain. In the real world, there are only oscillation of air molecules, and there are no "sounds". Say "cold" and "hot", "hard" and "soft", as when a human feels hot, only the air molecules around them move faster, that is, the average speed of these molecules hitting their body is higher; When a human being feels cold, only the average speed of air molecules hitting their body is lower. When a human feels that the cotton is very soft, it is easy to deform along their contact movement when they touch the cotton. When they feel the iron is very hard, just because when their hand touches the iron, the molecular structure of the iron resist the finger movements, and so on and so forth.

Essentially, the world has only electromagnetic waves of different wave lengths, the oscillation of air molecules in the form of longitudinal waves, the thermal motion of air molecules, some objects obey the "invasion" when you touch it, and some resist. Therefore, remove the subjective feeling of the person, the objective physical world has no light, no darkness, no color, no sound, no hot and cold, no soft and hard, and so on.

Secondly, when you see a red object, you say "red", "blood red" and so on. This is the feeling that electromagnetic waves from 6470 to 7000 angstroms produces in your brain. When a child learns to speak from 1 to 2 years old, when this electromagnetic wave is reflected from the object to his/her eyes and is felt by him/her, he/she is told that it is "red". When the same feeling appear later, they tell others that it is red. There is no way to take the two people's feelings of "red" out of the minds of two people and put them together to prove that they are consistent. Let's assume that there are two people, A and B: When A sees the electromagnetic wave (physical red light) in the 6470 to 7000 angstrom band, the feeling generated in his mind and the feeling of B seeing the electromagnetic wave in the same band cannot be perfectly identical. The feeling of B may even be the same as when A sees the physical orange light (5850 to 6470 angstrom band).

Different individuals often don't feel the same when the same external stimulus occur. For example, different people have different degrees of pain response to the same level of noxious stimulus. It is a similar story for hearing, medical science and psychology have demonstrated that the stimulation of the same sound signal causes a great difference in the perception of different people.

For example, a person who hate noise, who likes to be alone in a quiet place, can be caused by being particularly sensitive to the sound. In the jargon of electronics, the magnification of the person sound amplifier is several times larger than that of ordinary people. In an environment where normal people can be calm, it is intolerable to the person. The sensitivity of the sensory system to the same external stimulus varies from person to person, which is a fact that everyone recognizes.

The activities of the mental world such as feelings and thoughts are always "closed" and "insulated" in the subjective mental world. In other words, our thoughts and feelings cannot be exposed to another person. We can use the following model to illustrate the main features of the " problem of other minds ".

Suppose there is a piece of flat land on a distant planet in outer space with lot of tanks on it. In the control room of each tank, there is a TV screen, a set of speakers, a thermometer, and so on. Therefore, through the camera installed in front of the tank, it is possible to take the scene outside the tank and display it on the TV screen in the control room of the tank; through the microphone installed on the surface of the tank, the sound outside the tank can be transmitted to the speakers of the control room through the amplifier; the temperature outside the tank can be displayed on the thermometer of the control room through the temperature sensor installed on the surface of the tank, and so on. There is another microphone in the control room, as well as a control handle. The operator of the tank is an elf. The microphone can pass the elf's speech through the amplifier to the speaker on the surface of the tank, and the control handle allows the tank to move freely under the control of the elf, not only can the tank move, but it can also do a lot of things through the robot which is mounted on the tank. Assume that these tanks' control rooms are absolutely closed. In other words, it is impossible for the elf in the tank to go to outside the tank. Elves in the tank can only talk to each other through the tank's input and output microphone - speaker system. They can't see each other and can't shake hands with each other. They can only see their own tank and other elves' tanks, but they can't see themselves and other elves.

Suppose these tanks have life and can "reproduce." The mother tank can produce a son tank. One day, the bright red sun rose in the sky of the planet, and the mother tank said to the son tank: Behold, the sun is red. The elf in the son tank saw a color sphere appear on the screen of his tank control room, remembering that the color was called "red."

Tanks may be "dead" because they have life. If the tank died, its power within the entire tank system is gone, the entire system was "dead." Therefore, even if the control room of the tank is forcibly opened and exposed to the camera of the other tanks, the screen of the opened control room can never display an image, the speakers in the control room will never make a sound. Most importantly, once the control room is opened and exposed to outside space, the elf will disappear without a trace. The camera lenses of other tanks can't capture of the elf, nor can it capture the images and colors on the TV screen in the control room of the opened tank. Any elf can only see the TV screen and hear the sound of the speaker inside their own control room. It can't see the TV screen nor hear the sound from the speakers in other tank's control rooms.

Now, we use two "tanks" to play a game. View Figure 1.

（Go to the link http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_19235f0440102ycr4.html see Figure 1）

The elf in tank I uses its control handle to control the tank's robot to use a color palette to make a color that the third observer calls A. This color was recorded by tank I's camera system and displayed on the screen in the control room. The elf in tank I sees the color of an a I.

No one, except the designer and creator of this system - God or nature, can guarantee that color a I is color A. And until now, humans on the Earth have not been able to prove that color a I is equal to color A.

The elf in tank II now also uses its camera to capture color A. An a II color appears on the screen of its control room. At this time, we ask elf in tank II to use its control handle to control tank's robot to use a color palette to make a color is the same color as A. As a result, the elf in tank II created a B. The color b II is color B in the eyes of the elf in tank II. Since our requirement for B is that B is the same as A, elf in tank II must always change the B of the color palette until it sees that b II is completely equal to a II. Let us assume that the color input and output of the tank I and tank II's camera systems have a one-to-one correspondence. Because the generation of a II and b II is done by the same camera system of tank II, and because b II is equal to a II, so color B is equal to color A.

Since color B is equal to color A, the image b I of color B in the screen of the control room of tank I is equal to a I, which is because tank I uses the same camera system to take A and B.

At this point we have proved that: color A is equal to color B, a I is equal to b I, and a II is equal to b II. As mentioned above, we can never prove that color A is equal to a I or color A is equal to a II. As for whether a I is equal to a II? We can't prove it either. The above is the model of the problem of other minds , we call it the "tank-elf" model.

Now we return to the real world from the example of the model. The same external object A, whose characteristics such as color, are reflected in the human brain to form an image A1. Whether the feature of the image A1 is the same as the feature of the external object A cannot be proved. Image A1 is just a "code" used by humans to understand the objective world. For example, red light is used to mark electromagnetic wave radiation in the 6470 to 7000 angstrom band. Materialists believe that the understanding formed in the human brain is a "reflection" of the external existence of the objective world, and it does not require that it to be "identical." Just as you use a thermometer to measure the temperature, as long as the indication of the thermometer has a one-to-one relationship with the outside temperature, the outside temperature is known. We don't want to see what "temperature" itself is. The world outside us is not a world we see, hear, and touch. What we feel is only a "code" of it. How the real world looks like, nobody knows it. In particular, the "feeling" or sense that this "code" causes in different human brains cannot be proved to be the same.

III. Answers to the questions of artificial intelligence philosophy

If it is just limited to discussing artificial intelligence machines like AlphaGo, which have a neural network designed to play a Go Game, there is no philosophical problem at all. As a consequence of having no "intelligence" at all, it just does a table lookup action using statistical methods. When given the composition of a Go Game, it decides where to place next pieces on a board. The so-called deep learning uses game records of a large number of senior players to adjust the weights between the nodes of each layer of the multi-layer neural network, so that the results of the machine are most in line with the choice by senior players. The weights between the various nodes of the neural network is formed by the so-called "learning" result and have no value for understanding the intelligent activities of the human player when playing Go Game. The weights are a large number of numerical values that no one can understand. Compared with the earlier BP (Back Propagation) neural network, the neural network with deep learning just has more layers, more nodes, stronger computational power of hardware and more data for training. AlphaGo can play Go Game with players, fly as a plane and a bird, run as a car wheel and a human leg, but is just the most superficial simulation of functionality. Wheels, aircraft, and AlphaGo, are physical, chemical, and technical aspects, and there are no philosophical problems. Fundamentally, the core problem of philosophy is the relationship between the physical world and the mental world. Philosophers are divided into materialist philosophers and idealist philosophers according to which of the material and mental worlds is primary and determines the existence of the other. Philosophical problems arise only when artificial intelligence attempts to simulate or replicate the intellectual activities of the human mental world.

Irrespective of whether the physical and mental world is primary, according to the model of the "tank and elf", human consciousness is closed to a mental world which cannot be observed and contacted directly by all means of modern scientific and technology. Psychology and cognitive science can only indirectly observe the subjects' conscious activities from their behavior and language expression. Even the most recent use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), for example, when macaques see the face, it explores which areas of the brain are activated, or when people want to play tennis, it shows that the motor cortex becomes active, and so on. These research is only at the stage of functional positioning in the brains of animals and people. There is no way to get into the closed tank-elf control room. Based on this, the author's answers to the philosophical questions of artificial intelligence are as follows.

1. The silicon-based system, i.e., a computer made of semiconductor integrated circuits (as distinct from an organic human carbon-based system), or any other system that humans can create, assuming that they can reproduce and evolve themselves. Will it be able to eventually produce consciousness, intent, and intellectual activities similar to the human's activities in its mental world?

In response to this question, there are countless planets in the universe. Most people believe that there is a high probability of life and intelligent life on planets other than the Earth. There is no reason why life and intelligence must be carbon-based system on other living and intelligent planets in the universe. If these creatures can reproduce and evolve, the probability is high that it would eventually produce consciousness, intention, and intellectual activity similar to that of the human mental world.

However, on the Earth, non-carbon-based creatures are not in existence. The so-called silicon-based systems of computers is made of semiconductor integrated circuits (or what other systems humans can make). Even if we assume that they can reproduce and evolve themselves, if you look at the billions of years of human evolution, even if they end up producing consciousness, intention, and intelligent activities similar to the human mental world, it could take hundreds of thousands, if not billions, of years. Even if humans are able to create the environment that could accelerate their evolutionary process to achieve their goals, the time required would make such a process inconceivable.

2. Because of the speed of scientific and technologic progress is increasing exponentially over time, can human beings, in the future, be able to open up the closed mental world of "tanks and elf," and have a thorough understanding of human consciousness? What part of the brain (or body) does mental activity, such as intention and intelligence function. Through what ways can humans simulate and replicate their consciousness, intentions and intelligence in machines? Finally, is it possible to create consciousness, intention, and intelligent activities similar to the human mental world by humans without machines being required to reproduce and evolve themselves?

In response, this situation can't be a highly probable event. The reason for this conclusion is, to this day, humans have not been able to prove that human intelligence is the highest level of intelligence of all intelligent creatures in the universe. If arranged according to the intelligent level of intelligent creatures on each planet of the universe, according to the law of large numbers of mathematics, the intelligence of human beings is the most likely to be arranged in the middle order of various intelligent creatures in the universe. Despite the rapid progress of human science and technology over time, in the eyes of extraterrestrial intelligent creatures, which are one or several orders of magnitude higher than human intelligence, it is thought that human advances shouldn't go beyond a certain limit. This is similar to how humans see animals on the Earth, that they are inferior to human intelligence are unable to pass through the critical intelligence threshold.

Primarily humans have very basic questions that may never be answered. Questions such as the to the origin of the universe are logically unsolvable by human wisdom. Why? Fundamentally because according to the normal logic of human thought, everything has production, evolution and will eventually disappear. It is said that the present material universe is formed by the accumulation of energy, that is, in accordance with Einstein's formula e = mc2. However, from where does the energy originate? Engels criticized Duhring's theory of the origin of the universe, saying that the universe has a time starting point, and at this point, the universe pass over from absolutely unchanging into a state of motion and change. In order for this change to happen, there must be a divine force from the outside world to drive it, therefore Duhring fell into the quagmire of theism (Engels 1877). Newton believed that God created planets in order to solve the problem of the initial driving force of celestial motion. However, Engels did not answer the essence of the question, he transferred this starting point to the infinite past, saying that there is no starting point, as the universe is already there.

The opinion of the writer is that firstly, this is an dogmatic statement, just as the Bible says that God is eternal, without beginning and without end. Secondly, it denies the idea that the universe has its origin, the habit of normal human logical thinking and the way in which questions are asked.

The writer of this paper does not think it is possible for humans to have a thorough understanding of the mental activities of human consciousness, intention and intelligence.

Firstly, from the quantitative analysis, the structure and mechanism of the human brain are so complicated that neuroscientists can only provide superficial conceptual knowledge of the structure and mechanism of the human brain.

Essentially, the three main unknown areas to humans are the universe, the human brain and the microcosm. Therefore, the proportion of human known and unknown knowledge in these three fields and the gap between the existing human understanding and the required ability to get a thorough understanding of the three fields are of the same order of magnitude.

Can humans have a thorough understanding of the vast universe? Can human beings have an in-depth comprehension of the endless microcosm? The degree of difficulty is the same as having a complete understanding of the structure and mechanism of the human brain.

Secondly, from the qualitative analysis, the process from ‘feeling’ to ‘thought’ requires several stages such as perception, presentation and concept. In addition, language is needed as a tool to facilitate thoughts, which would ultimately lead to the creation of intent and will.

So, what is the most basic "feeling" of mental activity, and who is going to "feel"? It's the elf in our model of " tank-elf" who is going to feel. If the elf can exist independently after the tank is opened, it is what religion calls "soul". The writer of this paper would rather believe that elf is a "thing", that animals evolve at a certain stage, attached to or dissolved in their neural system. This "thing" specialises in "consciousness", and then transits from "sense" to thought, will, desire, etc. However, humans in the universe are unable to enter the closed room of the tank-elf. Perhaps there are aliens which possess a higher intellect than humans who can solve this problem, but humans cannot. This may be fatalism.

Therefore, this is why the writer of this work opposes the claim that, the human beings, who are in the middle of the intelligent sequence in the universe, declare that they can thoroughly understood the universe.

IX. Conclusion

1. It can be stated that "the greatest feature of the human brain is intentionality" and that "artificial intelligence machines have no intentionality ", the "intentionality" however this refers to the "intent", "planning" and "purpose" that we have in mind when we act. It is not "intentionality" in philosophical phenomenology. This intention in creatures on the Earth is the product of billions of years of evolution, and is the ability which nature gave high level animals and humans.

2. It can be claimed that humans can only observe the explicit behavior of others and inference that other people also have inner mental activities. We cannot directly observe the mental world of others. The outside world is not the colorful things we see, nor the songs of birds we hear and fragrance of flowers that we smelt. Without subjective feelings, there is no light, no darkness, no color, no sound, no hot…. All the feelings humans have are codes that are caused by stimulus from outside world that act differently in different people's brains, and hence subjective feelings cannot be proved to be the same for everyone. After the tank was opened, the elf, if they can exist independently, could be called "souls" in religion. In the tank-elf model, human scientists can never get into the tank's room and can never end its mystery.

3. There is no foundation to request that life and intelligence must be carbon-based on other planets which have intelligent life in the universe. If these creatures can reproduce and evolve themselves, the possibility of eventually producing consciousness, intention, and intellectual activity similar to that of the human mental world exists. However, the emergence of non-carbon-based creatures on Earth is inconceivable due to the time factor relating to creation.

4. Human intelligence has a high probability of being arranged in the middle order of various intelligent creatures of all planet in the universe. Logically, humans formulated questions that human intelligence cannot answer. This is a high-probability event, because the human brain is too complex, they are unable to fully understand human consciousness, intention, and intelligence. In essence, it is impossible for humans to simulate and replicate these consciousness, intention and intelligence in machines.

Bibliography

Chen, Yizhang (2004). Central Nervous System. Encyclopedia of China. Biology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Engels, Frederick (1877). Anti-Dühring , Part I: Philosophy

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch03.htm

Geng, Zhencheng and Xu, You En (2004). Behavioral Genetics. Encyclopedia of China. Biology (CD 1.2 plus Edition)

Guo, Dejun and Wang, Yijue (2004). The Presentation. Encyclopedia of China. Psychology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Pan, Shu (2004), The Origin of Consciousness. Encyclopedia of China. Psychology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy （2003）

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy （2014）

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

Wang, Su (2004). The Concept. Encyclopedia of China. Psychology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Wu, Hongye (2004). The Will. Encyclopedia of China. Psychology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Xu, Bingxuan (2004). Learning and Memory. Encyclopedia of China. Biology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Yang, Xiongli (2004). Visual Perception. Encyclopedia of China. Biology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Yin, Hongzhang (2004). Plant Physiology. Encyclopedia of China. Biology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)

Zheng, Xiangfu (2005). Four philosophical problems of artificial Intelligence.

, Science, Technology and Dialectics， Vol22， No5

http://www.cssn.cn/zt/zt_xkzt/12746/zxsyxdrgzn/rgznzxgl/201604/t20160419_2974614.shtml

Zhou, Shaoci (2004). Nervous System. Encyclopedia of China. Biology (CD 1.2 plus Edition, China Encyclopedia Press)