This was a more controversial claim.
这是一个更具争议性的话题。
Hartree, for instance, writing to The Times in November, had repeated his statement in Nature that
哈特里在11月给《时代》投稿，再次强调了他在《自然》中的声明：
'use of the machine is no substitute for the thought of organising the computations, only for the labour of carrying them out.'
"机器的应用并不能取代人类，因为机器需要由人类来制造。"
Darwin had written more expansively that
达尔文的说法则更加清楚：
In popular language the word 'brain' is associated with the higher realms of the intellect,
通常所说的"大脑"这个词，是与高等智力联系在一起的，
but in fact a very great part of the brain is an unconscious automatic machine producing precise and sometimes very complicated reactions to stimuli.
但是实际上，大脑的很大一部分，可以看成是无意识的自动机器，产生着一些可以被模仿的复杂反应。
This is the only part of the brain we may aspire to imitate.
但是，这仅仅是一部分大脑，
The new machines will in no way replace thought, but rather they will increase the need for it ...
新机器无论如何都不会完全代替人类思考，它们只会促进更高层次的思考……
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,
达尔文和哈特里，实际上回应了阿达的评论，也就是洛甫雷斯伯爵夫人，她在1842年写了一份关于巴贝奇分析引擎的评论。
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.'
她认为："这种分析引擎没有能力做任何创造性工作，它只能做那些我们已经知道明确步骤的事情。"
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.
这个论断推翻了一些天真的想法，即机器能做复杂的算术就说明机器有智能。
As the first writer of programs for a universal machine, Lady Lovelace knew that the cleverness lay in her own head.
作为第一位给通用机编程序的人，洛甫雷斯夫人非常清楚，智能在她自己的脑子里，而不在机器里。
Alan Turing would not have disputed this point, as far as it went.
就目前而言，图灵还无法争论这一点。