Alan Turing Documentary(adafruit.com)
adafruit.com
Alan Turing Documentary
http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2011/04/03/alan-turing-documentary/
27 comments
>It's just kind of unsettling to have heard him talked about as a genius so many times yet to have never heard it acknowledged that he was so profoundly mistreated.
At the time, being homosexual was considered a mental disorder. This is how we used to treat people with mental disorders. Now, go to your nearest insane asylum and see if we're any less barbaric today. Be prepared for disappointment.
At the time, being homosexual was considered a mental disorder. This is how we used to treat people with mental disorders. Now, go to your nearest insane asylum and see if we're any less barbaric today. Be prepared for disappointment.
I happen to have a friend who was forcibly admitted to a mental hospital as a result of delusions and suicide attempts. I visited him a lot, and while there were many things that were disappointing about his treatment there, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. Compared to the 60's (and earlier) it is very difficult to forcibly admit someone, and even if you do have a judge saying someone can legally be confined in an institution, it is in the institution's financial interest to get that person out of there as quickly as possible. The biggest problem with modern psychological treatment isn't shit like what happened to Turing; it's that for really serious disorders - asylums (instead of being improved) were replaced with the street.
Incidentally, my friend, while he didn't enjoy his time at the hospital at all, will tell you he's glad the judge forced him in. He probably wouldn't be alive otherwise.
Incidentally, my friend, while he didn't enjoy his time at the hospital at all, will tell you he's glad the judge forced him in. He probably wouldn't be alive otherwise.
>Now, go to your nearest insane asylum and see if we're any less barbaric today. Be prepared for disappointment.
Erm, care to back that one up there my friend?
Erm, care to back that one up there my friend?
Today we "treat" children with drugs to 'correct' their depression, their ADD, and so on. How can we be sure that a generation from now, we won't look back and realize that we were damaging their brains during a crucial learning window? How can we be sure that a generation from now, we won't look back and realize that we were playing God with people's personalities?
I'm not against pharmapsychiatry, but at the same time I would stop well short of saying that everything we do with it is unassailably beneficial for the patients. Perhaps in a generation we will realize that trying to 'cure' ADD isn't very different from trying to 'cure' homosexuality.
I'm not against pharmapsychiatry, but at the same time I would stop well short of saying that everything we do with it is unassailably beneficial for the patients. Perhaps in a generation we will realize that trying to 'cure' ADD isn't very different from trying to 'cure' homosexuality.
Forcing a person who is past the age of legal responsibility to take massive doses of sex/gender hormones against their will is not the same as giving kids ritalin, and it is mildly offensive to say so.
We do not put ADD kids in "insane asylums." Have you ever seen the inside of a mental hospital? Most modern ones are nicer places than the average school.
Psychiatry before the 60s/70s was basically a different thing altogether to modern psychiatry. One flew over the cuckoos nest has a lot to answer for. It wasn't even an accurate portrayal of practices at the time the book was written, let alone when the film was made.
I broadly agree with the ADHD thing though. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(The US healthcare system and the incentives around drug proscriptions don't help a lot.)
We do not put ADD kids in "insane asylums." Have you ever seen the inside of a mental hospital? Most modern ones are nicer places than the average school.
Psychiatry before the 60s/70s was basically a different thing altogether to modern psychiatry. One flew over the cuckoos nest has a lot to answer for. It wasn't even an accurate portrayal of practices at the time the book was written, let alone when the film was made.
I broadly agree with the ADHD thing though. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(The US healthcare system and the incentives around drug proscriptions don't help a lot.)
>Forcing a person who is past the age of legal responsibility to take massive doses of sex/gender hormones against their will is not the same as giving kids ritalin, and it is mildly offensive to say so.
You're speaking from the moral outrage position of today. At the time, this was thought of as a way to "correct" the issue just as various drugs we force on kids is now. Personally I find it at least as bad that these drugs are forced on kids who have no way to defend themselves or even know what's being done to them.
The last time I was in the US I ended up having lunch with a friend and that friend's grown up daughter. The daughter, sadly, had a 4 year old son. During the coarse of lunch the loud, obnoxious daughter explained about all the disorders her kid had (ADD, OCD, etc.) and all the drugs she gave him to deal with it. My wife asked what would happen if she just skipped giving him all this medication. "Oh, you just can't deal with him if he's not on it.".
She then went on to talk about her life. It was pretty clear that she had no time for the kid; he had to either be with baby sitters or sitting in front of the TV nearly 24/7. I can't help but think/hope that in 50 years this kind of lazy, inconsiderate behavior will be considered criminal (since it's the child who bears the long term affects of it, not the decision maker). That kid sounded like a normal 4 year old boy to me but he's being drugged into shape so he can serve a role closer to that of a cat than of a child.
It's been speculated that if Mozart, Beethoven, etc. were born in the US today they would probably never amount to anything because their parents would probably drug away their creativity.
You're speaking from the moral outrage position of today. At the time, this was thought of as a way to "correct" the issue just as various drugs we force on kids is now. Personally I find it at least as bad that these drugs are forced on kids who have no way to defend themselves or even know what's being done to them.
The last time I was in the US I ended up having lunch with a friend and that friend's grown up daughter. The daughter, sadly, had a 4 year old son. During the coarse of lunch the loud, obnoxious daughter explained about all the disorders her kid had (ADD, OCD, etc.) and all the drugs she gave him to deal with it. My wife asked what would happen if she just skipped giving him all this medication. "Oh, you just can't deal with him if he's not on it.".
She then went on to talk about her life. It was pretty clear that she had no time for the kid; he had to either be with baby sitters or sitting in front of the TV nearly 24/7. I can't help but think/hope that in 50 years this kind of lazy, inconsiderate behavior will be considered criminal (since it's the child who bears the long term affects of it, not the decision maker). That kid sounded like a normal 4 year old boy to me but he's being drugged into shape so he can serve a role closer to that of a cat than of a child.
It's been speculated that if Mozart, Beethoven, etc. were born in the US today they would probably never amount to anything because their parents would probably drug away their creativity.
Forcing a person who is past the age of legal responsibility to take massive doses of sex/gender hormones against their will is not the same as giving kids ritalin, and it is mildly offensive to say so.
Maybe, but that's not what I said. What I did was ask the question whether a generation from now we might say that. It's perfectly ok to think that no, we will always think it's ok. It's useful to wonder about it. And I do believe it's useful to question things like this and ask whether we might be doing a similar thing.
You never know.
Maybe, but that's not what I said. What I did was ask the question whether a generation from now we might say that. It's perfectly ok to think that no, we will always think it's ok. It's useful to wonder about it. And I do believe it's useful to question things like this and ask whether we might be doing a similar thing.
You never know.
There are many interesting characters in the mathematical sciences but most courses don't go into their personal backgrounds.
Definitely! I felt the same way. I'm just finishing my undergrad CS degree and I think there was maybe one AI lecture that mentioned Alan Turing-the-human-being out of all the classes I took... I would sometimes wonder.. are there other students who just hear things like "Turing complete", "Turing machine", etc., but don't have any idea who this "Turing" actually was?
I wish it was more common as part of these classes to actually talk about the great CS people.. who they are.. in our short history, because this is interesting stuff! Oh well.
I wish it was more common as part of these classes to actually talk about the great CS people.. who they are.. in our short history, because this is interesting stuff! Oh well.
"I wanted Alan Turing to be raised into the pantheon of great Britons, but I felt it would be hypocritical to do so without recognising that Britain treated him so badly" JGC.
It's Turing year next year and it was John Graham-Cumming ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jgrahamc who organised for Turing to receive an apology from the British Government for his mistreatment. You can read more about it here ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2009/09/12/a-benevolent-social-hack
It's Turing year next year and it was John Graham-Cumming ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jgrahamc who organised for Turing to receive an apology from the British Government for his mistreatment. You can read more about it here ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2009/09/12/a-benevolent-social-hack
I wonder if our descendants will be apologizing for some of our actions once we're all dead? However I suppose that by then the re-definition of what I used to understand by the word 'apology' will be complete.
>I wonder if our descendants will be apologizing for some of our actions once we're all dead?
We lock people up for smoking a plant that grows naturally, laughing about the fact that they may be raped by other men. I would say it's almost a certainty (at least I hope) that our descendants will be at least as shocked at what we do as we are at those who came before us.
We lock people up for smoking a plant that grows naturally, laughing about the fact that they may be raped by other men. I would say it's almost a certainty (at least I hope) that our descendants will be at least as shocked at what we do as we are at those who came before us.
I'd never read your write up before. Thanks for that.
"... I'd never read your write up before. Thanks for that. ..."
It was a great thing to do John. It changed history ~ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/number10.gov.uk/... I've also capped the Downing St. response via twitter ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3909148598/
It was a great thing to do John. It changed history ~ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/number10.gov.uk/... I've also capped the Downing St. response via twitter ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3909148598/
Don't blame the professors, blame yourself. Of course I don't mean this literally, I'm just trying to say that it's good to get used to doing your own research. Professors won't teach you everything that's important. It's primarily your job to broaden your horizons.
The BBC did a really good TV drama on Turing called "Breaking the code" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115749/).
I suspect its available on DVD now. Here is a small snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV67Sj2jkVg
I suspect its available on DVD now. Here is a small snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV67Sj2jkVg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing#Death
(Unconfirmed) Rumor has it that's the reason behind apple's "half eaten" logo and original rainbow colors.
(Unconfirmed) Rumor has it that's the reason behind apple's "half eaten" logo and original rainbow colors.
(Unconfirmed) Rumor has it that's the reason behind apple's "half eaten" logo and original rainbow colors.
That should read "(Pretty thoroughly debunked) Rumor has it...."
For example, http://www.greggore.com/dln021203.htm, or the Wikipedia page you quoted yourself.
That should read "(Pretty thoroughly debunked) Rumor has it...."
For example, http://www.greggore.com/dln021203.htm, or the Wikipedia page you quoted yourself.
That page has the most elaborate and geeky captcha I've ever seen. It's also not very practical considering that something like 7 percent of men have some degree of color blindness. I can barely tell the difference between 3 and 5 on that scale.
Is there any video or audio footage of Alan Turing? I am not aware of any.
It would be really amazing to see video of him, or at least hear his voice.
It would be really amazing to see video of him, or at least hear his voice.
Yeah, I agree. I think I remember reading maybe in the Hodges biography that there unfortunately isn't any; I think there was some sort of recorded radio interview that got lost somehow...
In terms of actual real-world tangible importance, I consider Alan Turing more important than Einstein. He and von Neumann are possibly the greatest scientists of the 20th century.
BTW, another thing people often don't know about Turing and von Neumann was that their interests went beyond computers and mathematics. Both were very interested in biology and physics as well, and did important work on those fields. von Neumann in particular did important work in regard to the theory of self-replication, early proto-evolutionary-information-theory, etc.
BTW, another thing people often don't know about Turing and von Neumann was that their interests went beyond computers and mathematics. Both were very interested in biology and physics as well, and did important work on those fields. von Neumann in particular did important work in regard to the theory of self-replication, early proto-evolutionary-information-theory, etc.
I don't know how I never heard of that before. It's certainly not from lack of hearing about Alan Turing in comp sci lectures. I feel kind of cheated that I didn't find out about it until now. Did the professors just not know? Were they too squeamish to talk about it? Did they think his biography was irrelevant in discussing his contributions to the field? It's just kind of unsettling to have heard him talked about as a genius so many times yet to have never heard it acknowledged that he was so profoundly mistreated.