> When Jaron Lanier suggests that we are not gadget, he shows that he
> has a reductionist conception of machine. Turing, Post, and others
> have been the pioneer in the research which shows that such a
> reductionist view of machine cannot be rationally defended.

Lanier's book is not a scientific book in the strict sense. He discusses rather what our society should look like in the future. He claims that open code/open culture leads to cybernetic totalism and fights against it.


On 22.01.2012 18:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 22 Jan 2012, at 14:10, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 16.01.2012 10:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:


Note also that Turing invented his test to avoid the
philosophical hard issue of consciousness. In a nutshell Turing
defines "consciousness" by "having an intelligent behavior". The
Turing test is equivalent with a type of "no zombie" principle.

On 16.01.2012 11:20 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 15 Jan 2012, at 09:13, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

What about the Turing test for a person in that state to check
if he still has consciousness?

As I said in another post, the very idea of the Turing test
consists in avoiding completely the notion of consciousness. I do
disagree with Turing on this. We can build a theory of
consciousness, including, like with comp, a theory having
refutable consequences. Turing was still influenced by
Vienna-like positivism.


Bruno, below there are quotes from Jaron Lanier on Turing Test from
 his book You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, 2010


From a chapter The Apple Falls Again.

"The second thing to know about Turing is that he was gay at a time
 when it was illegal to be gay. British authorities, thinking they
were doing the most compassionate thing, coerced him into a quack
medical treatment that was supposed to correct his homosexuality.
It consisted, bizarrely, of massive infusions of female hormones."

I have still some problem finding reliable information of what they
exactly did to Turing. But it was obviously not a kind treatment.

"In order to understand how someone could have come up with that
plan, you have to remember that before computers came along, the
steam engine was a preferred metaphor for understanding human
nature. All that sexual pressure was building up and causing the
machine to malfunction, so the opposite essence, the female kind,
ought to balance it out and reduce the pressure. This story should
serve as a cautionary tale. The common use of computers, as we
understand them today, as sources for models and metaphors of
ourselves is probably about as reliable as the use of the steam
engine was back then."

I think that we are steam engine. It is not a metaphor. We are also
Universal Turing Machine. Being a steam engine is just a matter of
implementation, and of working in a thermodynamically driven
environment. Being universal is a deeper feature of our existence. We
might be more than that, but we still cannot even define what that
would mean, precisely. We don't find any evidence for the needed
special sort of infinities making our mind non Turing emulable

"Turing developed breasts and other female characteristics and
became terribly depressed. He committed suicide by lacing an apple
with cyanide in his lab and eating it. Shortly before his death, he
 presented the world with a spiritual idea, which must be evaluated
 separately from his technical achievements. This is the famous
Turing test. It is extremely rare for a genuinely new spiritual
idea to appear, and it is yet another example of Turing"s genius
that he came up with one."

I love Turing. But Jaron seems to exaggerate a bit. My reading of it
is that it is just a non zombie assumption, and that's nice FAPP. But
it is still a naturalist escape of the mind-body problem on the
conceptual level. I am not astonished, I have met all my life a frank
animosity by variate scientists even just on the word "mind". It
takes time for humans to get a scientific attitude on that. Turing's
paper is a progress in that direction, but the Turing test is far
from being a last answer in the debate, even if it is the last answer
in practice. Emil Post did see the shadow of the reversal
physics/theology, and the failure of naturalism, but in a footnote to
his "mystical" anticipation paper/notes (that you can find in Davis'
The Undecidable) he told us that he changed his mind on this after
discussing with Turing, which defended naturalism.

"Turing presented his new offering in the form of a thought
experiment, based on a popular Victorian parlor game. A man and a
woman hide, and a judge is asked to determine which is which by
relying only on the texts of notes passed back and forth."

"Turing replaced the woman with a computer. Can the judge tell
which is the man? If not, is the computer conscious? Intelligent?
Does it deserve equal rights?"

"It"s impossible for us to know what role the torture Turing was
enduring at the time played in his formulation of the test. But it
is undeniable that one of the key figures in the defeat of fascism
was destroyed, by our side, after the war, because he was gay. No
wonder his imagination pondered the rights of strange creatures."


"When Turing died, software was still in such an early state that
no one knew what a mess it would inevitably become as it grew.
Turing imagined a pristine, crystalline form of existence in the
digital realm, and I can imagine it might have been a comfort to
imagine a form of life apart from the torments of the body and the
politics of sexuality. It's notable that it is the woman who is
replaced by the computer, and that Turing's suicide echoes Eve's

Perhaps, but Turing specifically did not see the "matrix-like"
consequence of mechanism. His test just suggests that we can only
judge the existence of thought from behavior. I do agree with this,
in practice, but it is incomplete in theory, and it hides the idea
that we can make testable theories of consciousness, once we stop
taking Aristotelianism for granted. Eventually mechanism is testable,
because the apparent naturalism can be derived from it, and so we can
make comparison.

When Jaron Lanier suggests that we are not gadget, he shows that he
has a reductionist conception of machine. Turing, Post, and others
have been the pioneer in the research which shows that such a
reductionist view of machine cannot be rationally defended.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to