Yesterday I raised a glass in memory, and more should do it

Maxinquaye · Jun 23, 2012

Yesterday it was June 23rd. An unremarkable day in most respects. I came home from my mini vacation and packed off the love interest of my life to his people so they could talk some sense into him. Little problems of an ordinary life, and I spent some time thinking about huge problems in an extraordinary life because June 23rd is the birthday of a man called Alan Turing.

Most people have never heard of him. He died in 1954, on June 7th, after eating a poisoned apple. It was a suicide, and he had been brought low by the most ignomous of fates. He was born a homosexual in a time when you did not admit to such a thing, and in a time when even a man such as Turing who had been pivotal in defeating the Third Reich, and thereby saved countless of thousands of soldiers, was punished for being what he was.

BBC is celebrating Turing with a number of essays this week. Bravo. It won't make up for the shameful treatment he suffered, but here's another glass for the man. If anyone deserves it, he does.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17662585

Al Stevens · Jun 23, 2012

If it weren't for Turing, the world of computers might be quite different. Prior to his Turing Machine concept, computers were hard-wired to do their work. If you wanted to change what the computer did, you rewired it. Turing developed a concept in which a computer stored not only data but program instructions with logic and sequences that told it what to do. All digital computers are based on the foundation that Turing built. He was also a pioneer in artificial intelligence.

Filigree · Jun 23, 2012

And it is absolutely shameful that the British government 'apologized' in 2009 for their treatment of Turing, but did not pardon him. Their excuses ranged from 'he's already dead, so what does it matter' to 'but at the time he was charged, the anti-sodomy laws were real, so it was a genuine offense'. The man was humiliated in public, chemically castrated, and blacklisted. How far ahead could our computer industry be, if he'd lived?

His decisive work in WWII could never even be *mentioned* in court.

We raised some glasses yesterday for him in our household, poor man.

Manuel Royal · Jun 23, 2012

(In the U.S. it's still June 23.)

Great man.

He may or may not have committed suicide; an accidental self-poisoning (either from that apple -- which was never tested for cyanide -- or through accidental inhalation) makes as much sense. The inquest conducted in 1954 wouldn't be considered adequate for a cause of death today.

But he was definitely treated abominably by backward, shameful laws.

Alessandra Kelley · Jun 23, 2012

I knew about him. My husband is a mathy computer wonk.

I haven't posted it yet, but I have partly written an essay about the history of 1952 in the context of a science fiction magazine. In it I contrast the treatment of Alan Turing to the treatment of Wernher Von Braun, to the credit of neither Great Britain nor the United States.

The treatment of Turing was a disgrace, and unbelievably stupid given the Cold War and how brilliant and necessary he was. The British government couldn't have done the Soviet Union a bigger favor, and I daresay delayed computing progress in the West a decade or more.

Here's to the memory of a brilliant and much abused man.

BigWords · Jun 23, 2012

Filigree said:
How far ahead could our computer industry be, if he'd lived?

Alessandra Kelley said:
The British government couldn't have done the Soviet Union a bigger favor, and I daresay delayed computing progress in the West a decade or more.

FWIW, had he continued along the thought processes he had been contemplating, I really do think that computers wouldn't have developed in the way that they had - saying that we would have had what we have today, albeit earlier, is wrong. He would have found a way to constantly improve upon his ideas, and refine his concepts along possibly radically different lines. His death is one of the great tragedies of British history, and is a painful reminder that even great men can be destroyed by small minds concerned with short term goals.

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 24, 2012

BigWords said:
FWIW, had he continued along the thought processes he had been contemplating, I really do think that computers wouldn't have developed in the way that they had - saying that we would have had what we have today, albeit earlier, is wrong. He would have found a way to constantly improve upon his ideas, and refine his concepts along possibly radically different lines. His death is one of the great tragedies of British history, and is a painful reminder that even great men can be destroyed by small minds concerned with short term goals.

Had Turing been developing computers on his own they very likely would have turned out unlike what we have now.

Turing's conception of rule based machines (Turing Machines)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
carry with them a level of meaning that our digital computers do not.

A Turing Machine performs its actions based on what sequences of symbols it takes in. In a Turing Machine, the data and the instructions are intermingled and indistinguishable. This is closer to the human act of reading wherein what we are given to think about and how we are asked to think about them are presented together and our minds act upon that single presentation.

He was a brilliant man and a great aid to a country that decided that neither genius nor assistance mattered compared to prejudice.

I wish his life were a lesson from which people would learn. But too many people let their own minds react only to the single symbol 'homosexual' and ignore the rest of the streams of people's lives.

Maxinquaye · Jun 24, 2012

That's the most startling. He and the team at Bletchley park shortened WW II by at least one year. Maybe two, or more. Think of all the carnage, of all the destruction; the V2's raining over London, progressively better with the other genius von Braun working at Peenemunde. The german's had just invented the jet fighter. And this little team, they make that machine run out of time.

And what's the thanks? For all those save allied soldiers and airmen and civilians both on the continent and in the UK? Not as much as a 'by your leave'. Because the other thing is more important to punish.

Bogna · Jun 24, 2012

Wow, thank you for posting this. I had never heard of him before and now I am completely fascinated with him.

crunchyblanket · Jun 24, 2012

Turing's something of a personal hero for me. My glass is raised.

Ken · Jun 24, 2012

... didn't know about the persecution Turing suffered. That's horrible. You'd figure that someone who'd helped society so much and who'd played such an instrumental role would not have to go through something like that. Bigotry knows no bounds though. History proves that again and again.

Shakesbear · Jun 24, 2012

I posted this on fb yesterday

Happy Birthday Alan Turing. He was born one hundred years ago into a world whose morality was bound by religious beliefs and social conventions which formed his genius and yet was also a prison for his sexuality. Without his inspired work at Bletchley Park I would not be here - and I wonder if my computer would have been born. Thank you Alan, rest in peace

Click to expand...

I do get a bit fed up with 21st century morality being applied to the past. The work he did not put him above the law. Reading this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 makes me think that some people today are more bothered by his treatment than he was The work Alan did was highly secret - it is only with the last decade or two that his work has been acknowledged, and that of all his colleagues at Bletchley Park. He was not singled out for punishment because of his homosexuality, many men were punished. In fact the law had been moderated - men in the early nineteenth century were hung. Google White Swan, Vere Street and/or see http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/

Captcha · Jun 24, 2012

I absolutely agree that the treatment of Alan Turing was appalling, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the connections being drawn between the way he was treated and the contributions he made. From a practical perspective, the connections make sense, but I don't think they do from a moral perspective.

It's wrong to abuse innocent people regardless of their accomplishments. I don't believe it's MORE wrong, morally, to abuse an innocent person who also happens to be a genius who has contributed a great deal to society.

The corollary of this, of course, is that it's wrong to ignore bad behaviour from someone just because they're contributed a great deal. I'm thinking of all the Roman Polanski apologists, here. If we say that Alan Turing's genius should somehow elevate him above others who were persecuted for the same 'crime', do we also say that Roman Polanski's genius should have indemnified him from prosecution as a rapist?

(For the sake of my own fear of offending or, worse, hurting anyone, let me clarify that I do not, in any way, shape or form think that it's appropriate to equate consensual sex, gay or otherwise, with rape. But both acts were crimes in the time and place where they occurred, so the connection makes sense to me in this specific context).

I'm disgusted by how Turing was treated by the British government. And I'm impressed by his genius and his contributions to technology. I'm just not comfortable squishing the two aspects of his story too closely together.

ETA: And while I was being so careful to get the words right, Shakesbear beat me to the punch!

Alessandra Kelley · Jun 24, 2012

Captcha said:
I absolutely agree that the treatment of Alan Turing was appalling, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the connections being drawn between the way he was treated and the contributions he made. From a practical perspective, the connections make sense, but I don't think they do from a moral perspective.

It's wrong to abuse innocent people regardless of their accomplishments. I don't believe it's MORE wrong, morally, to abuse an innocent person who also happens to be a genius who has contributed a great deal to society.

The corollary of this, of course, is that it's wrong to ignore bad behaviour from someone just because they're contributed a great deal. I'm thinking of all the Roman Polanski apologists, here. If we say that Alan Turing's genius should somehow elevate him above others who were persecuted for the same 'crime', do we also say that Roman Polanski's genius should have indemnified him from prosecution as a rapist?

(For the sake of my own fear of offending or, worse, hurting anyone, let me clarify that I do not, in any way, shape or form think that it's appropriate to equate consensual sex, gay or otherwise, with rape. But both acts were crimes in the time and place where they occurred, so the connection makes sense to me in this specific context).

I'm disgusted by how Turing was treated by the British government. And I'm impressed by his genius and his contributions to technology. I'm just not comfortable squishing the two aspects of his story too closely together.

ETA: And while I was being so careful to get the words right, Shakesbear beat me to the punch!

I don't think geniuses should be exempt from criminal punishment because they are geniuses; it's why I contrasted the disgraceful treatment of Alan Turing, for whom no exception was made, to the disgraceful treatment of Wernher Von Braun, for whom every exception was made.

I do consider the British policy towards homosexual men to have been utterly disgraceful. I don't think genius should never exempt anyone from the law, but the loss of Turing's genius underscores the tragic waste and folly of Britain's policy.

Ken · Jun 24, 2012

... you raise a valid point, Captcha and Shakesbear. (Well worded too.)

Maxinquaye · Jun 24, 2012

Every person ever born, who will ever be born, is above the law. The law exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law. Sometimes the law requires that human beings, from being a moral being, must reject a law. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were enacted by democratic parliaments in civilised countries, and it is a moral duty to be against slavery and Jim Crow, if you are to call yourself a moral being.

Whether it happened five, fifty or five hundred years ago, history is judgement of that which is important for the time that the judgement is done in. Alan Turing was not treated any better than a black man that was ordered to sit at the back of a bus. It is not wrong to say that the black man at the back of the bus was disgracefully treated, even if no man is supposed to be above the law which legalised that treatment.

Everyone is above the law. Everyone. When the law is above people, you get a situation where the little minds tear down a man like Turing. Or for that matter you get a situation where someone is beat up behind the pub, often by police-officers. Or you get black men and women swinging like strange fruit in southern breezes.

Don · Jun 24, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
Every person ever born, who will ever be born, is above the law. The law exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law. Sometimes the law requires that human beings, from being a moral being, must reject a law. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were enacted by democratic parliaments in civilised countries, and it is a moral duty to be against slavery and Jim Crow, if you are to call yourself a moral being.

Whether it happened five, fifty or five hundred years ago, history is judgement of that which is important for the time that the judgement is done in. Alan Turing was not treated any better than a black man that was ordered to sit at the back of a bus. It is not wrong to say that the black man at the back of the bus was disgracefully treated, even if no man is supposed to be above the law which legalised that treatment.

Everyone is above the law. Everyone. When the law is above people, you get a situation where the little minds tear down a man like Turing. Or for that matter you get a situation where someone is beat up behind the pub, often by police-officers. Or you get black men and women swinging like strange fruit in southern breezes.

Winner post of the decade. Thanks for your perceptiveness and eloquence. If only our education systems would teach the truth in what you just said.

Captcha · Jun 24, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
Every person ever born, who will ever be born, is above the law. The law exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law. Sometimes the law requires that human beings, from being a moral being, must reject a law. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were enacted by democratic parliaments in civilised countries, and it is a moral duty to be against slavery and Jim Crow, if you are to call yourself a moral being.

Whether it happened five, fifty or five hundred years ago, history is judgement of that which is important for the time that the judgement is done in. Alan Turing was not treated any better than a black man that was ordered to sit at the back of a bus. It is not wrong to say that the black man at the back of the bus was disgracefully treated, even if no man is supposed to be above the law which legalised that treatment.

Everyone is above the law. Everyone. When the law is above people, you get a situation where the little minds tear down a man like Turing. Or for that matter you get a situation where someone is beat up behind the pub, often by police-officers. Or you get black men and women swinging like strange fruit in southern breezes.

But who are you arguing against? Shakesbear said that Turing being a genius didn't put him above the law. I assume you'd agree - according to your formulation, it was Turing's humanity that put him above the law.

That said, I don't really believe in your formulation. Laws come from humans - I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that they're automatically subservient to the will of a single human.

The law exists to serve people as a group, and will, almost inevitably, be in contradiction to the will of some individual person somewhere. If everyone naturally wanted to do whatever it is a law requires, there would be no need for the law. But in order to live together as a society, individuals are sometimes required to do things they don't naturally want to do, for the good of the group. That's why we have laws.

I agree that there are laws that are morally reprehensible, and I agree that we have a duty to resist these. And I agree that laws are best understood as being representations of the will of the people, rather than as independent entities. But I don't agree that the will of the individual automatically overrides the agreements of the majority. Is that what you're arguing for?

Snowstorm · Jun 24, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
Every person ever born, who will ever be born, is above the law. The law exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law. Sometimes the law requires that human beings, from being a moral being, must reject a law. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were enacted by democratic parliaments in civilised countries, and it is a moral duty to be against slavery and Jim Crow, if you are to call yourself a moral being.

Whether it happened five, fifty or five hundred years ago, history is judgement of that which is important for the time that the judgement is done in. Alan Turing was not treated any better than a black man that was ordered to sit at the back of a bus. It is not wrong to say that the black man at the back of the bus was disgracefully treated, even if no man is supposed to be above the law which legalised that treatment.

Everyone is above the law. Everyone. When the law is above people, you get a situation where the little minds tear down a man like Turing. Or for that matter you get a situation where someone is beat up behind the pub, often by police-officers. Or you get black men and women swinging like strange fruit in southern breezes.

You bring tears to my eyes.

*Raises a cup to Turing*

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 24, 2012

Shakesbear said:
I posted this on fb yesterday

I do get a bit fed up with 21st century morality being applied to the past. The work he did not put him above the law. Reading this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 makes me think that some people today are more bothered by his treatment than he was The work Alan did was highly secret - it is only with the last decade or two that his work has been acknowledged, and that of all his colleagues at Bletchley Park. He was not singled out for punishment because of his homosexuality, many men were punished. In fact the law had been moderated - men in the early nineteenth century were hung. Google White Swan, Vere Street and/or see http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/

It's not a question of being above the law, although Maxinquaye's post on that is both eloquent and accurate.

It's a question of people being so blind to the good of other humans that they discount them based on blind prejudice.

Looking at Turing, at the good he did for mathematics and the work he did for his country, his people did not say, "Perhaps we are wrong in our views." They said, "Who cares? He's one of them, he deserves to be treated like this."

Rather than let his humanity and human achievement overcome their views, they let their views wipe away his humanity and achievement.

Furthermore, the laws he broke were not laws against harming others. They were laws against doing things that offended the sensibilities of his fellows.

Not all laws are equal, and not all laws are just.

As for how he was treated, driving the man to suicide does not look that much better than hanging him.

Alessandra Kelley · Jun 24, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
Every person ever born, who will ever be born, is above the law. The law exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law. Sometimes the law requires that human beings, from being a moral being, must reject a law. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were enacted by democratic parliaments in civilised countries, and it is a moral duty to be against slavery and Jim Crow, if you are to call yourself a moral being.

Whether it happened five, fifty or five hundred years ago, history is judgement of that which is important for the time that the judgement is done in. Alan Turing was not treated any better than a black man that was ordered to sit at the back of a bus. It is not wrong to say that the black man at the back of the bus was disgracefully treated, even if no man is supposed to be above the law which legalised that treatment.

Everyone is above the law. Everyone. When the law is above people, you get a situation where the little minds tear down a man like Turing. Or for that matter you get a situation where someone is beat up behind the pub, often by police-officers. Or you get black men and women swinging like strange fruit in southern breezes.

This is an incredibly good and powerful post. Well said.

Shakesbear · Jun 24, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
Every person ever born, who will ever be born, is above the law. The law exist to serve people. People do not exist to serve the law. Sometimes the law requires that human beings, from being a moral being, must reject a law. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were enacted by democratic parliaments in civilised countries, and it is a moral duty to be against slavery and Jim Crow, if you are to call yourself a moral being.

Whether it happened five, fifty or five hundred years ago, history is judgement of that which is important for the time that the judgement is done in. Alan Turing was not treated any better than a black man that was ordered to sit at the back of a bus. It is not wrong to say that the black man at the back of the bus was disgracefully treated, even if no man is supposed to be above the law which legalised that treatment.

Everyone is above the law. Everyone. When the law is above people, you get a situation where the little minds tear down a man like Turing. Or for that matter you get a situation where someone is beat up behind the pub, often by police-officers. Or you get black men and women swinging like strange fruit in southern breezes.

The main concern of English Law (not UK as that would include Scotland, and they have slightly different laws) is to protect not serve. The laws that existed against homosexuality were there to protect society from what at the time was perceived to be a crime.

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 24, 2012

Shakesbear said:
The main concern of English Law (not UK as that would include Scotland, and they have slightly different laws) is to protect not serve. The laws that existed against homosexuality were there to protect society from what at the time was perceived to be a crime.

Perhaps. Then again the society seems to have had a simultaneously disdainful and salacious attitude toward these supposedly protective laws.

Here's a link to an essay written by Turing's brother John about Alan Turing's life and death that was not published until it was found much later by John Turing's son after his death.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl....html?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_multiline

John Turing clearly disapproved of his brother's homosexuality, and shows a lot about the society and its times.

Alan foolishly but typically reported the loss to the police, who did not seem much interested in “the burglar.” But they were greatly interested in the prospect of prosecuting a don, a near-Olympic runner and a Fellow of the Royal Society for homosexual practices, then proscribed by the law.

He continued to talk about “the burglar” and wrote me an unpleasant letter suggesting that I cared nothing for his plight or that of homosexuals in general (the letter, perhaps, being not far wide of the mark) and that I was merely concerned to protect myself and my partners from adverse comment in the City from our Establishment friends. It was so far from the truth that I sent him a tart reply of which I feel ashamed.

At the inquest itself, this soon became apparent: there were present some eight or nine reporters, some from the national press, with pencils poised and waiting for the homosexual revelations. They were disappointed.

Al Stevens · Jun 24, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
In a Turing Machine, the data and the instructions are intermingled and indistinguishable.

That is about how we wrote programs in the 1950s. The resulting chaos and confusion built into such spaghetti code led to the development of structured and, later, object-oriented programming models.

Al Stevens · Jun 24, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
This is closer to the human act of reading wherein what we are given to think about and how we are asked to think about them are presented together and our minds act upon that single presentation.

Object-oriented programming returns to that concept and brings to it a more organized approach in which the behavior and data representations of an object are encapsulated into the object's definition.

Yesterday I raised a glass in memory, and more should do it

That cheeky buggerer

Mildly Disturbing

Sophipygian

Geekzilla

Nurture Phoenixes

That cheeky buggerer

the Juggernaut of Imperfection

knows a hawk from a handsaw

Sophipygian

That cheeky buggerer

All Living is Local

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue

Nurture Phoenixes

Sophipygian

knows a hawk from a handsaw

Nurture Phoenixes