单项选择题

Some of the old worries about artificial intelligence were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid computation and little or no creative activity, were soon dubbed "electronic brains". A reaction to this terminology quickly followed: To put them in their place, computers were called "high-speed idiots", an effort to protect human vanity. But not everyone realized the implication of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelligent life forms on earth. If the early computers were even that intelligent, it was already a remarkable state of affairs.
One consequence of speculation about the possibility of computer thought was that we were forced to examine with new care the idea of thought in general. It soon became clear that we were not sure what we meant by such terms as thought and thinking. We tend to assume that human beings think, some more than others, though we often call people thoughtless or unthinking. Dreams cause a problem, partly because they usually happen outside our control. They are obviously some type of mental experience, but are they a type of thinking And the question of non-human life forms adds further problems. Many of us would maintain that some of the higher animals—dogs, cats, apes and so on—are capable of at least basic thought, but what about fish and insects It is certainly true that the higher mammals show complex brain activity when tested with the appropriate equipment. If thinking is demonstrated by evident electrical activity in the brain, then many species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in biological creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts. And what is true of thought is also true of the many other mental processes. One of the irmnense benefits of a research is that we are being forced to scrutinize, 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 or oak tree can play chess as well as the simplest digital computer; nor can frogs weld car bodies as well as robots. It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most animals. Only the higher animals can compete with computers with regard to intellect and even then with diminishing success. The author’s attitude towards computers’ intellect can be best described as