Alan Turing

[conception_native_0123]

I just talked with another Christian friend of mine down in Florida and he told me that this man was tortured or given that hormonal therapy or whatever it was, by so called Christians in england. Does anyone over there know if that's true? @Jon ? Anyone else? Because that's not really showing love and care to a human being if you ask me. Especially as a reward for all the work he did for the legitimate world.

 

[Jon]

I believe he was chemically castrated. Until recently, I thought it meant they were dissolved in acid or something!

 

[conception_native_0123]

Then I have to question your education there John makes me wonder if Richard would do the same thing.

 

[Jon]

They didn't teach it in school.

 

[conception_native_0123]

They didn't teach it in school.

Did they teach ANYTHING about people who were enigmas in their own right?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you were to watch the movie The Imitation Game, you would learn that Alan Turing was indeed treated harshly during a time when homosexual rights were not prevalent anywhere in the world. Though there is no doubt that the film version of the story was dramatized heavily, they did not hide the fact that Turing was found guilty of a sexual offense related to homosexuality. His choices were long-term incarceration or chemical castration, essentially a very strong type of hormone therapy. He chose the latter but the side effects of the drug used were so harsh that he eventually took his own life by ingesting cyanide that had been infused into an apple.

The movie also dramatizes what may well have been a legit discussion.

You might find it interesting that the Apple logo is a partly eaten apple. This is perhaps a nod to one of the most brilliant and influential minds in the early field of computing; he died after biting into an apple. This one bite forever forbade his entry into the (computing) paradise that ensued after WW II when machine research became predominant. One wonders how much more his genius might have contributed to the modern world of computing.

The Theory of Computability stems from his work with the hypothetical Turing Machine, which is the mainstay of automaton theory with its finite and non-finite automata. Among other ideas that he showed mathematically was the idea that if something is infallible it cannot be intelligent. I.e. the perfect, unerring machine can never make mistakes - but it can never innovate.

makes me wonder if Richard would do the same thing

I need you to clarify that statement. Do what to whom? You KNOW that I am gay-friendly.

Did they teach ANYTHING about people who were enigmas in their own right?

Clever enough. He and several others collaborated to break Enigma during WW II. He was the chief architect of the electro-mechanical computing device that eventually broke Enigma. Do you know how they figured it out?

The problem was that the machine had literally millions upon millions of combinations to try. At first, the machine worked but took longer than 24 hours to produce a solution. Since the code was reset every 24 hours, they could never catch up. However, they realized that if they knew ahead of time that a particular word would be present they could ignore solutions that would not produce that word. In the movie, they used a weather report so surmised that the word "weather" would be in the title (obviously, "Wetter" which is German for weather). They also realized that the weather messages always ended with "Heil Hitler" - so they could drop solutions that didn't produce that sequence either. This narrowed down the scope of the problem such that they could get a solution within a few minutes that would then give them the ability to decode all messages for that day. Then, of course, the German High Command would change codes daily, but a new weather report would come out at 0600 each day based on the new code setting. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[conception_native_0123]

I need you to clarify that statement. Do what to whom? You KNOW that I am gay-friendly.

has nothing to do with gay-anything. what I meant was "to think like Jon". to think about them being done in by acid like Jon said. I will write more later...and yes, I've seen the Imitation game. but it said nothing about the people who did that to him were actually christians. that was the point of this thread. not just that he was punished.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If Turing had been punished by devout Christians who followed the Bible, they would have stoned him to death. If Jon has not seen the movie, and given that this generation is at least SOMEWHAT kinder and gentler to gays, he might not know about it. Some years ago in the USA, the idea of using chemical castration on rapists was outlawed but I'm old enough to remember when it was still a point of discussion. Basically, it is a way to kill the sex drive of rapists and child molesters. Since the motivation isn't actually sexual, it doesn't work as a deterrent anyway.

When I was working my way through college in New Oreans in the late 1960s/early 1970s, we didn't stone gays. We merely invited them to come down to the French Quarter and listen to some music and get stoned.

 

[Jon]

I saw the movie and it was brilliant. I think regarding the chemical castration thing, we are not born with an understanding of what it means. You have to hear what it involves before you know what it involves. I thought perhaps a nice soothing bathe in a small vat of acid might be kinder than a couple of old school bricks slammed together. Then again, maybe it isn't.

 

[conception_native_0123]

When I was working my way through college in New Oreans in the late 1960s/early 1970s, we didn't stone gays. We merely invited them to come down to the French Quarter and listen to some music and get stoned.

your humor is getting better! southern style.

Some years ago in the USA, the idea of using chemical castration on rapists was outlawed but I'm old enough to remember when it was still a point of discussion. Basically, it is a way to kill the sex drive of rapists and child molesters. Since the motivation isn't actually sexual, it doesn't work as a deterrent anyway.

I never told anybody here this, but i might as well because it doesn't bother me. I was issued a damn trespass order through the police by some of the catholic churches in a nearby city because apparently I did the wrong thing and visited some of them just to say hi one day when I was in the city. It was nothing more than an intro because of my involvement down here in the churches. and those idiots thought I was a damn child molester! LOL. look, I realize that the catholic church has had an issue with sex scandals in the past, but SERIOUSLY. I think that goes to show you how DUMB some people who are involved with churches really are! All the churches that got together to do that just happen to have schools attached to them. GO FIGURE... IDIOTS.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think that goes to show you how DUMB some people who are involved with churches really are!

I will be a gentleman and not stomp all over the opportunity that gives me to make editorial comments about YOUR involvement with churches. I don't wish to offend our other members who haven't put you on ignore yet.

All the schools that got together to do that just happen to have schools attached to them.

Somehow the semantics of that sentence eludes me.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Somehow the semantics of that sentence eludes me.

it has since been fixed. I M.A.K.E. M.I.S.T.A.K.E.S. too ya know. just like you. as a matter of fact, you were caught in the same TING a few times. don't get on my ass about it! LOL

 

[Isaac]

If Turing had been punished by devout Christians who followed the Bible, they would have stoned him to death.

Now, now, Doc .... ... I know, that you know, better than that. You know well that consensus interpretation of Biblical Christianity has not called for individuals who commit known sins to have anything like this done to them for a very long time.

You're better than this - you don't need to stoop to deliberate mischaracterization of a position in order to make it look worse than it is; you have plenty else to go on if desired (hypocrisy on sexual sins, selective outrage over certain sins, violation of loving each other, and more) that will support the way you feel about Christians vs. gays in the current age.

 

[Jon]

We can't help what we do because everything is preordained since the Big Bang. The laws of physics prevail.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Christians vs. gays in the current age.

according to the vatican, it isn't christians vs. gays in the current age. apparently it is christians vs. THE SIN. that's all I know. I'm referring to the blessing of same sex unions. that's what their decision was.

 

[conception_native_0123]

We can't help what we do because everything is preordained since the Big Bang. The laws of physics prevail.

oh how I love the scientific mind. Jon beats us all!

 

[Isaac]

We can't help what we do because everything is preordained since the Big Bang. The laws of physics prevail.

Why put any effort into societal order, then? Does that mean doing so is essentially just a feel-good apparition of improving our lot?

But I am intrigued by your thought, and I have often pondered a similar thing on the religious aspect. Regarding the difference between omniscience and omnipotence and causality. As a human, the difference seems easy enough to comprehend: If I know what is about to happen to you, that is nothing at all like making it happen.

However, with God, I struggle to reconcile omnipotence, omniscience, and causal detachment or will. I try, but I still wonder.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, @Isaac - I'll back down. Devout MODERN Christians wouldn't have stoned Turing to death. In Biblical times? They might very well have done so. Devout MODERN Muslims? No promises there - they still do stoning for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, and a few other things. Religion among fundamentalist types can be SO unforgiving, which is odd for a religion that claims to follow the greatest forgiver ever born.

@Jon -

everything is preordained since the Big Bang

Depends on viewpoint, but the general consensus is "No" on that one, I think. In a Quantum Mechanical universe, randomness and chaos theory are significant factors in our environment and choices. Einstein and Oppenheimer disagreed on this one. Einstein was a "strict causality" person whereas Oppenheimer was all about randomness. Oppenheimer's views have been more strongly supported even though many of Einstein's ideas have been proven as well.

QM is all about probabilities. Radioactive decay is a perfect example; you know in a given sample that half of the radioactive atoms will decay by a certain time - but you can't tell WHICH of them will decay.

Storm pathways are another good case; we know the odds of a storm forming but do not know where or in what direction it will travel (other than within a general area.)

Human reproduction is another case; randomness comes in knowing WHICH sperm will fertilize the egg - if any.

There are proponents of human behavior being at most PARTLY deterministic. Within our brain we have potentials both to do and to not do. [Yoda voice] There is no try! There is only Do or Not Do [/Yoda voice]. Some folks think that chaos theory - more specifically, SDIC or "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" - is operable here. That is the reason why some folks say we have free will. We do things based on what has led us to the moment of decision.

Here, the Bard of Avon was right - "What's past is prologue." (Appropriate that here we have a Tempest brewing.) However, the rest of the quote would show that while the past brings us to the present, the future is still based on our decisions. "Whereof what's past is prologue; what to come, in yours and my discharge."

In fact, if QM is right, then omniscience (in the sense of preordination - of "knowing everything that will happen - before it happens") is totally impossible. Randomness at the quantum level precludes such knowledge. All we can hope for is a statistical knowledge of what is LIKELY to happen, and even that is subject to variation based on the reliability of the information feeding the statistics.

Isaac, I sympathize with your struggle. I went through it at age about 35. Past a certain point, I realized there were too many inconsistencies and too many modern discoveries that made no sense unless I looked at the Bible differently, as a series of cultural myths that had limited factual basis. As a collection of allegories and myths, telling you what people believed at the time, it makes perfect sense. Saying that, though, doesn't mean they were right about all of the mysticism and miracles. Only that they had stories about miracles by mystic beings.

 

[Isaac]

OK, @Isaac - I'll back down. Devout MODERN Christians wouldn't have stoned Turing to death. In Biblical times? They might very well have done so. Devout MODERN Muslims? No promises there - they still do stoning for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, and a few other things. Religion among fundamentalist types can be SO unforgiving, which is odd for a religion that claims to follow the greatest forgiver ever born.

Ok thanks!

True about devout Christians in Biblical times, especially before Jesus. And I agree about devout-but-modern Muslims, which isn't intended to be a dig "just because" it is not my religion, but an honest assessment of current times - and is also why I believe there is nothing r*cist about people who are hesitant to embrace the migration of Islam into their home countries. It's a very reasonable and rational reaction to the reality that we see in many places of the world today - and NOT just a tiny % of people on the edge/fringe of the religion. So-called Islamaphobia is, (in a rare case where a term including the word phobia actually IS an accurate representation of a fear), the rational fear of the proven consequences of Islam.

I personally interpret the Bible as to have very little instruction for setting up modern governments. Following that, I note that acceptance of Christ is best understood as a completely individual, personal choice. Following that, I am comfortable with the following general guidelines for a government: In no particular order

• Not legislating morality for the most part
• Criminal law mostly focusing on restrictions that are necessary to protect people from harm
• But, the US government can continue to recognize and preserve the Judeo-Christian source of its founding principles
• I am also comfortable with the government not necessarily promoting, but protecting, Christianity and even as a preference to other religions, but with a simultaneous consideration for the current state of the religion and whether it jives with protecting people from harm

At the end of the day, social norms ARE anchored in something. Some people are comfortable with the anchors, some people feel they should be completely free of those anchors. I would personally submit to you that the overall future risk of having them anchored to nothing (other than popular democratic opinion) is probably greater than the relative harm that has been caused by having them largely anchored to Christian principles. Meaning, what is the amount of meaningful risk associated with letting social rules be dictated by whatever people are comfortable with (think 300 years from now), versus, what is the harm associated with maintaining that they be anchored in the moral compass (and all its trappings, for better or worse), that has guided America up until now - and you have to give a little credit to the evolution of Christianity over time rather than just focus on the past. : )

Philosophical "source" of our rights/social norms is a fascinating subject to me

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, there is a simpler anchor than Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. There is a basic principle that is common to all of the world's major religions though it is stated differently in each one. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That statement PREDATES Christianity. It is an older variation of the modern warning "What goes around comes around."

"Evolution of Christianity over time" is an interesting phrase that I think is worthy of definition. To my viewpoint, it really hasn't evolved in major ways since the Council of Nicea just after 400 CE. Christianity still uses the Bible that was defined at that time. All those denominations represent nasty doctrinal tiffs among members of congregations, but there is still that nonsense about Heaven and Hell. Newer religions are for the most part the result of disagreements of the meaning of some obscure passage, compounded by the fact that the original authors cannot be questioned. A few religions added new books to the Bible or in some other way modified it. The Book of Mormon is an example. Technically, Islam also uses the Bible as a base, but has added the writings of Muhammed to the mix.

Look at all the modern Christian denominations. The commandments are still there. The same basic stories are there. Demands on your time and money are still there. Forced rejection of people who are somehow "different"? Still there too. How has Christianity evolved significantly?

Answer: It can't without new instructions from God. But none of the denominations have significantly changed things.