雙語暢銷書《艾倫圖靈傳》第8章:水銀延時線(80)

This was a more controversial claim.

這是一個更具爭議性的話題。

Hartree, for instance, writing to The Times in November, had repeated his statement in Nature that

哈特里在11月給《時代》投稿，再次強調了他在《自然》中的聲明：

'use of the machine is no substitute for the thought of organising the computations, only for the labour of carrying them out.'

"機器的應用並不能取代人類，因爲機器需要由人類來製造。"

Darwin had written more expansively that

達爾文的說法則更加清楚：

In popular language the word 'brain' is associated with the higher realms of the intellect,

通常所說的"大腦"這個詞，是與高等智力聯繫在一起的，

but in fact a very great part of the brain is an unconscious automatic machine producing precise and sometimes very complicated reactions to stimuli.

但是實際上，大腦的很大一部分，可以看成是無意識的自動機器，產生着一些可以被模仿的複雜反應。

This is the only part of the brain we may aspire to imitate.

但是，這僅僅是一部分大腦，

The new machines will in no way replace thought, but rather they will increase the need for it ...

新機器無論如何都不會完全代替人類思考，它們只會促進更高層次的思考……

Darwin and Hartree were, in fact, echoing the comment by Ada, Countess of Lovelace, who wrote an account of Babbage's planned Analytical Engine in 1842,

達爾文和哈特里，實際上回應了阿達的評論，也就是洛甫雷斯伯爵夫人，她在1842年寫了一份關於巴貝奇分析引擎的評論。

and claimed that 'The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform.'

她認爲："這種分析引擎沒有能力做任何創造性工作，它只能做那些我們已經知道明確步驟的事情。"

At one level, this assertion certainly had to be urged against the very naive view that a machine doing long and elaborate sums could be called clever for so doing.

這個論斷推翻了一些天真的想法，即機器能做複雜的算術就說明機器有智能。

As the first writer of programs for a universal machine, Lady Lovelace knew that the cleverness lay in her own head.

作爲第一位給通用機編程序的人，洛甫雷斯夫人非常清楚，智能在她自己的腦子裏，而不在機器裏。

Alan Turing would not have disputed this point, as far as it went.

就目前而言，圖靈還無法爭論這一點。