From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Subject: Re: Imitating Turing (was: Liberty (was: (never mind)))
Organization: Eris's Restaurant
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:02:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.160317.2518@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>In <Bznvz6.Grt@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
>idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.220208.19407@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> 
>>arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>>>Role models (e.g. Alan Turing, for gay men, at least if they're
>>>computer geeks).
>
>>If Alan Turing's supposed to be a role-model, I'll turn straight.
>>And give up computers.  And have a sex change.
>
>>Gus, why on earth would anyone want to be a sociopathic chess-player
>>who worked for the Government?
>
>Before I try to answer your question, tell me, have you read the
>biography of Turing, by Andrew Hodges? ("Alan Turing, the Enigma
>[of Intelligence]" -- title depends on which edition. The book
>was also used as the basis for a stage play, written by Hugh
>Whitemore (?), with the amusing title, "Breaking the Code".)

Yes.  I've read both of the Turing biographies (I had to, in self
defence; there were just too many computer-nerds coming up to
me and saying "Hey, you're gay, would you like to have a look
at some nifty Z-80 code I just wrote for handling the Deferred
Queen's Gambit?" or some such.  Still, it's better than anoraks
who want to mumble about bogeys and other choo-choo nonsense
while biting my ears.  [Excepting Orc: he'd be welcome; he's
no anorak]).  I haven't seen the stage-play.  I doubt my guts
would bear it.

>And, BTW, what *does* "sociopathic" mean? (I guess I'm just too
>sociopathic to know, which explains why I like the guy?) I thought
>it was a pseudo-medical synonym for "evil", which hardly seems an
>apt description of AT. "Neurotic", or "eccentric", perhaps you mean?

Nope.  "Sociopathy" is (or, to be more accurate, "the sociopathies" are)
condition/s such that the sufferer has great difficulties in forming
"normal" social relationships.  Since you refer to Hodges' book, I'll
point you to the matter of Turing's tin mug.  There are more examples
there.

Yeah, "neurotic" and "eccentric" apply, too, except that "eccentricity"
I think of as at least to some extent endearing, and "neurotic" is
just such a broad-spectrum boo-word that I don't bother with it.

>And "chess player"? Maybe you're confusing him with C. H. O'D. (?)
>Alexander, who was, I think, another WWII codebreaker, who could also
>slaughter Turing at chess. (As a chess wimp myself, I identify with this.)

Turing played chess, didn't he?  [Racks brain]  I'm sure that somewhere
I've read some of his writings about chess - and quite good they were,
too.  Though perhaps you're right, and I'm confusing him with Alexander.
Others (yoo-hoo... chess players, where are you?) may be able to enlighten
us both.

>And the work AT did "for the Government" was on behalf of "the people"
>as well, or so it still seems to me. Is it somehow wrong to break military
>codes? I don't see it. Indeed, I'd have thought that helping, in a big
>way, to defeat the Nazis would make him a big role model (for all those
>enigmatically clueless people out there who are impressed by such things). :-)

No.  Because I don't think he cared about any moral implication of his
work, that he'd have done it just as happily whether it saved or
slaughtered millions.  He just did it because it was Clever.

[The above may be a gross libel; but that's the impression I've gained
of him through reading Hodges' biography]

>I'll grant you, he did believe in AI (believe in it? -- he invented it),
>which is a minus point, in my book. -- Perhaps not for all the clueless
>types we have to impress, though.

Tread carefully, Gus, I'm a "strong AI'er" meself... :)

>[Shouldn't be saying "we" yet, I know: being still only partially-clued
>myself.]

Nope, I have to impress plenty of clueless types in my research,
unfortunately.  I'm merely glad that I can impress the clueful.
They may not be able to give me money or equipment, but their
praise is nectar indeed.

>P.S. Now let's not get started on Wittgenstein: there's serious
>"sociopathy" for you! He was gay though, wasn't he? And people are
>impressed by him, you must admit; so he's a good advertisement for ...
>um ... us. After all, one has to reach all the clueless (pseudo-)
>intellectuals, as well as all the clueless ignorami.

That was a joke, wasn't it?  Inflecting "ignoramus" as though it
were a Latin noun?  If not, FYI, [pace Tim Pierce] "ignoramus"
is a first-person plural verb form: "we do not know".  It can't
be pluralised.

Wittgenstein?  I've no time for the man, but I've had many a happy
hour with the TL-P.  Then again, I haven't had any spotty first-year
philosophy student trying to distract me from their groping by
muttering "The world is everything that is the case" in my ear...

Now, philosophers: I've always wished that Kierkegaard had been
queer.  Or Spinoza.

Then again, one can have too much Kierkegaard.  I once mis-cited
him in a bibliography that I was putting together as having written
"Fear and Loathing".  Hunter S. Kierkegaard, anyone?

>P.P.S. Impressing Zeleny -- now there's a thought. Pity Church isn't gay
>-- is he?  Or was Montague? :-) :-)

Don't know about Church, but I've been assured (to my delight) that
Montague was.  And there are good grounds for believing that that
eminent linguist Arnold Zwicky isn't straight, either.

>(P.^3)S. Christopher Strachey was gay, too. (I think. At least he can't
>sue me for saying so.)

Was he?  To be honest, I can't actually imagine him having sex.  But
there you go.

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents