Some of the old worries about artificial intelligence were closely linked to the question ofwhether computers could think.The first massive electronic computers,capable of rapidcalculation and little or no creative activity,were soon dubbed(取綽號)"electronic brains".Areaction to this terminology quickly followed,computers were called"high speed idiots",an effortto protect human vanity.But not everyone realized theimplications of the high-speed idiottag.It has not been pointed out enough that even the human idiot is one of the mostintelligent life forms on earth.If the early computers were even that intelligent,it was already aremarkable state of affairs.

　　One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we wereforced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general.It soon became clear that wewere not sure what we meant bysuch terms as thought and thinking.We tend to assume thathuman beings think,some more than others,though we often call people thoughtless orunthinking.Dreams cause a problem,partly because they usually happen outside ourcontrol.They are obviously some type of mental experience,but are they a type of thinking?And the question of nonhuman life forms adds further problems.Many of us would maintain thatsome of the higheranimals-dogs,cats,apes,and so on-are capable of at least basic thought,butwhat about fish and insects?If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in thebrain,then many species are capable of thought.Once we have formulated clear ideas on whatthought is in biological creatures,it will be easier to discuss the question of thought inartifacts(人工制品).And what is true of thought is also true of the many other mentalprocesses.One of the immense benefits of a research is that we are being forced toscrutinize,with new rigor,the working of the human mind.

　　It is already clear that machines have superior mental abilities to many life forms.No fern oroak tree can play chess as well as even the simplest digital computer,nor can frogs weld carbodies as well as robots.It seems that,viewed in terms of intellect ,the computer should be setwell above plants and most animals.Only the higher animals can compete with computers withregard to intellect and even then with diminishing success.

　　一直以來，關(guān)于人工智能的一些擔(dān)憂與電腦是否會思考這個問題緊密相連。[1]最初的大型電于計算機可以快速計算卻沒有或幾乎沒有創(chuàng)造能力，它們馬上就被冠以“電腦”的綽號。很快就有了對這一術(shù)語的反應(yīng)，計算機被稱為“高速白癡”，這無非是維護人類虛榮心所做的一種努力。但并不是每個人都能意識到“高速白癡”這個綽號的含義。即使是一個白癡的人也堪稱世界上最智能的生命形式之一，這一點并未得到充分的指明。[2]如果早期的計算機能達(dá)到這種智力水平，那早已經(jīng)是件非常了不起的事情了。

　　[3]關(guān)于計算機是否具有思考能力的推測迫使我們重新審視“思維”的普遍含義。很快我們就會清楚地意識到我們并不確定“思維”和“思考”這類術(shù)語的意思。我們往往認(rèn)定人類會思考，一些人比其他人思考得多些，雖然我們常常會稱某人毫無思想或者缺乏思考。[4]夢的存在引出了一個問題，部分原固在于夢通常不受我們的控制。夢顯然是某種精神上的體驗，然而這能算是一種思考嗎?非人類生物的存在則引出了更多的問題。很多人都認(rèn)為一些較高等的動物，如狗、貓、猿等，至少有基本的思考能力，但魚和昆蟲呢?如果思考可以通過是腦的明顯電波活動顯現(xiàn)出來的話，那么很多物種都能思考。一旦我們明確地闡述出生物思維的含義，那么討論人造物體的思維問題就會變得更容易。而關(guān)于思維的正確認(rèn)識對于其他很多精神上的活動也同樣正確。對此進行研究的其中一個最大的好處是我們將不得不更嚴(yán)格地、仔細(xì)地研究人類的思考方式。

　　[5]機器比很多生物具有更強的思考能力，這早已是不爭的事實。蕨類或橡樹都無法下棋，即使最簡單的電子計算機都比它們強，青蛙也不可能像機器人那樣焊接車身?？磥?，如果以智力的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)衡量，計算機遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)勝于植物和多數(shù)動物。只有較高等的動物可以在智力方面與計算機相比，即使如此，兩者間的差距也是微乎其微的。

　　1.What did people think of the early computers?

　　2.According to the author,the early computers is__________________than human idiots.

　　3.As a result of speculating whether computer could think,we had to research more carefully toget_____________________.

　　4.Why do dreams cause the problem whether they are a type of thinking,according to theauthor?

　　5.What does the author want to illustrate by mentioning the fern and the oak tree?

　　1.[They were called"high speed idiots"/They can calculate rapidly but are idiots.]