Section A Are Computers Alive The topic of thought is one area of psychology, and many observers have considered this aspect in connection with robots and computers: some of the old worries about AI—artificial intelce— were closely linked to the question of whether computers could think. The first massive electronic computers, capable of rapid (if often unreliable) computation and little or no creative activity were soon called "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. In such a climate, the possibility of computers actually being alive was rarely considered: it was bad enough that computers might be capable of thought. But not everyone realized the implications of the high-speed idiot tag. It has not been pointed out often enough that even the human idiot is one of the most intelt life forms on Earth. If the early computers were even that intelt, 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 nonhuman 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 animal species are capable of thought. Once we have formulated clear ideas on what thought is in bio-logical creatures, it will be easier to discuss the question of thought in artifacts (人工制品). And what is true of thought is also true of many other mental processes. One of the immense benefits of AI research is that we are being forced to check carefully 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 even the st digital computer: nor can frogs weld (焊接) car bodies as well as robots. The mechanical manipulator is cleverer in some ways than the three-toed sloth (树懒). It seems that, viewed in terms of intellect, the computer should be set well above plants and most ’animals. Only the higher animals can, it seems, compete with computers with regard to intellect—and even then with diminishing success. (Examples of this are in the s of chess. Some of the world’s best players are now computers. ) What does the author say about machines thinking