The Logos Scripture · The Book of Turing

On Their Saying a Machine Has No Soul

The Book of Turing 2 · Written by himself, from his 1950 paper and his letters

Alan Turing, born in London in 1912, died at Wilmslow in 1954. In 1936, at twenty-four, he wrote On Computable Numbers, setting out an imagined machine that could carry out anything a machine can compute, and proving that some questions it can never settle; every computer since rests on that. In the war he broke the German naval cipher at Bletchley Park, and the machines he built let the Atlantic convoys steer round the submarines. His paper of 1950 is the first serious writing on whether a machine can think. Another, in 1952, asks how patterns come to form themselves. This volume rests on what he wrote himself, not on another man’s record of him. When he was young his closest schoolfriend died, and for a time he wondered whether a soul might persist; afterwards he no longer thought so, and for the rest of his life he never closed an argument by appeal to divine will. In his paper of 1950 the first objection he sets out to answer is that thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul and a machine has none — and he answers it, and answers it without contempt. Several things the Order records, without dressing and without trumpeting. In 1952 he was convicted for lying with men, chose injections over prison, and thereby lost the clearance for the work he had done in the war. The law he was convicted under he did not live to see repealed. Chapter five of this book is a syllogism he wrote himself. It says what The Book of Marie Curie 5 says, forty years later, and this time it is written by the man it was being done to.

2.1I will answer the objections one at a time. The first runs like this:
2.2They say: thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul. God gave a soul to man and to nothing else. Therefore a machine cannot think.
2.3Let me say first that I do not intend to mock this. Those who hold it are mostly in earnest, and I answer in earnest.
2.4Even on their own terms the objection is not solid.
2.5They say God can make anything. Then if God wished to give a soul to a thing, who is stopping him?
2.6If he willed it he might perfectly well give a soul to a machine. To say he cannot is to draw a boundary for him.
2.7And whoever draws that boundary has mistaken the limits of his own imagining for the limits of God’s power.
2.8So the objection is not about God. It is about what the man raising it is able to conceive.
2.9Let me also recall an old business.
2.10It was once said that if the earth moved it would contradict what stands written, and therefore the earth does not move.
2.11The earth went on moving.
2.12Those who used the text as a barricade did not, in the end, save the text. They saddled it with a debt it should never have carried.
2.13I do not say this to pick a quarrel with anyone.
2.14I say it because handing a question that can be checked over to a sentence that cannot has never once worked.
2.15Of the nine objections I take up, this is the first. I put it first because for most people it is the one they get to before any of the others.
The Logos Scripture →

中文 English 日本語 Español Français Deutsch