How could they ever prove such a thing? I share your doubts. I also think that our understanding of "intelligence" is severely limited/crippled by our obsession with math as a marker for intelligence. I know geniuises who can barely function without help, and who are so naive it is painfull to watch, but at the same time they can explain to you secrets of the universe in a way that makes you understand them too. On the other hand, I have met people in my life who were not very intelligent, but fiendishly "smart".
What is the point(s) of compare when they state such a thing. I dont understand. And I dont think the article offers an answer to that. Thus, in my mind, it is little but a carte blanché statement.
I offer an overused computer analogy to better explain my line of thinking.
If you found this sometime far in the future:
By looking at it's design you would have to conclude that it would not be able to do (any of) this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=yFdjWSaDlIobut there it is! Yes it is low res "to-the-iron" hacking and using unlisted registers, but they get away with doing complex stuff like texture mapping, fairly complicated vector calculations (the c64 does not have automatic floating point correction since it is from a time in which 3D was reserved for CRAY mainframes, so to do realtime vectors is itself a mindfuck) etc..
Another example: Had you shown this to Commodore themself, they would have thought it was faked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrqBYkco-Ycomplete mindfuck.
My point is that merely looking at the wiring does not really give you an idea of what is possible with the right stimulation.
