DOCSLIB.ORG

After Math: (Re)Configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
After Math: (Re)Configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States After Math: (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Dick, Stephanie Aleen. 2015. After Math: (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:14226096 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA After Math (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States Adissertationpresented by Stephanie Aleen Dick to The Department of the History of Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of the History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts November 2014 © 2014 Stephanie Aleen Dick. All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor Peter Galison Stephanie Aleen Dick After Math (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States Abstract This dissertation examines the history of three early computer programs that were designed to prove mathematical theorems: The Logic Theory Machine, the Program P, and the Automated Reasoning Assistant, all developed between 1955 and 1975. I use these programs as an opportunity to explore ways in which mathematical knowledge and practice were transformed by the introduction of modern computing. The prospect of automation generated disagreement about the character of human mathematical faculties like intuition, reasoning, and understanding and whether computers could be made to possess or participate in them. It also prompted novel discourse concerning the character of mathematical knowledge and how it should be produced. I track how the architects of each program built their beliefs about minds, computation, and proof into their theorem-proving programs and, in so doing, crafted new tools and techniques for the work of mathematics. The practitioners featured in this dissertation were interested in whether or not computers could “think.” I, on the other hand, am interested in how people think differently when they work with computers. And in particular how they thought dif- ferently about mathematics as they crafted a place for computers in the work of proof. Ilookfortracesoftheirnewwaysofthinkinginhowtheyimplementedtheirsoftware. This is a new historiographical approach from existing history of computing that, for the most part, does not engage software at all or engages high-level descriptions or models of software. iii I argue this: what were for my actors implementation concerns are in fact signif- icant epistemological issues for the history of mathematics. Especially in the early decades, actually getting programs to run on computers was no small feat. In imple- menting programs practitioners had to craft many new tools, both formal and material -fromprogramminglanguagesanddatastructurestopunchedcardencodingsanduser interfaces. The work of implementation spans multiple media - from paper to transis- tor - and involves many practices - from diagramming to coding - demonstrating that the media of the “digital age” are multiple indeed. Moreover, implementation is the site where we see practitioners rethinking their objects of interest, their disciplines, their theories, through the lens of computation - what is possible and impossible for computers to do. Implementation is the practice of automation. In implementing their theorem-proving software, the actors in this dissertation gave new formulations and had new experiences of mathematical intuition, logical rules of inference, and other key tenets of twentieth-century notions of proof. The communi- ties explored here were among the most influential and celebrated early contributors to automated theorem-proving. Each had quite a different relationship to the postwar American academic landscape relative to their disciplinary, institutional, and political makeup. Most importantly for they fundamentally and explicitly disagreed with each other about how the automation of proof should be done. Because of this, they devel- oped very different automated theorem-proving programs – one seeking to simulate the human mind, another seeking to surpass it, and another seeking to develop theorem- proving software that would collaborate with a human user. Each of these projects intervened in the history of mathematics by introducing new forms – both social and technical – of proof. iv Acknowledgements My first debt of gratitude is to my advisor, Peter Galison. It would be impossible to thank him sufficiently here for his incisive reflections about my work and his unfailing advocacy and encouragement. I am also grateful to Peter for creating many opportu- nities for me to explore museum and theater projects related to my research. I share his belief that “making” and artistic collaboration can be truly enriching to academic work, and for me this was certainly the case. Peter invested in me both as a scholar and as a person and I relied on his brilliance, his kindness, and his guidance at every stage. I also owe special thanks to Stefan Helmreich who was one of my most valued interlocutors and a tireless and amazing (and very close) reader of my work. Stefan’s generosity and (lightning fast) insightfulness are unparalleled. My research was also deeply informed by a generals field I did with him in cultural and social anthropology. I can only hope that the dissertation adequately reflects the impact that anthropological theory, as wielded by Stefan, has had on my thinking. I am extremely grateful as well to Jimena Canales, also a member of my committee, and also a gracious and close reader of my work. Jimena has an incredible knowledge of vast literatures and directed me toward many conversations that were important for this project but that I would not have discovered without her guidance. I also greatly valued her always honest, generous, and pragmatic advice about the dissertation itself and about the landscape of early academic careers. I was honored to also have mathematician Barry Mazur on my committee. The late John Murdoch once said to me that Barry just “sees things,” referring I think to the simultaneous breadth, depth, and seeming ease of his knowledge and understanding across many fields. I came to share this view, marveling at the subtlety and incisiveness of Barry’s thinking in conversation, in seminars, and in his always thoughtful reading v of my work. To Mario Biagioli and Joan Richards I also owe special thanks. Each supervised one of my generals fields and my thinking was shaped in significant ways through engagement with them. Both continue to be great mentors, readers, and colleagues. IthankaswelltheotherfacultyintheDepartmentofHistoryofScienceatHarvard, including especially Katy Park who was Director of Graduate Studies while I was a student as well as Janet Browne, Everett Mehndelson, and Charles Rosenberg for their advice, generous advocacy, and enthusiasm for graduate scholarship. I am very lucky to have had many other mentors whose seminars, conversations, collaborations, feedback, and interest were invaluable for my intellectual development - especially David Kaiser, Michael Gordin, Heidi Voskhul, Mark Schiefsky, Vincent Lepinay, Sophia Roosth, Sam Schweber, Nathan Ensmenger, and Amir Alexander. I am especially grateful to Nathan and Amir for affording me opportunities to publish pieces of this material. I must also thank Garth McCavana, Margot Gill and GSAS at Harvard for their unwavering support for graduate students of which I was a frequent beneficiary. My graduate experience was, at every turn, shaped by the friendship, insights, and kindness of my fellow graduate students. My cohort was a singular example of col- leagues who are also friends - I relied on them for advice, happy hour, feedback and, when needed, commiseration. The Modern Sciences Working Group, Phunday, and the Dissertation and Writers Group were central venues from which I received amaz- ing feedback on many versions of this material and I am enormously grateful for them. Special thanks to Lukas Rieppel, Alex Czsisar, Alex Wellerstein, Dan Volmar, He Bian, James Bergman, Michael Rossi, Hallam Stevens, Henry Cowles, Ion Milhailescu, Colin Webster, Nassar Zakariya, and Evan Hepler-Smith for countless important conversa- tions, wonderful feedback, collaborations, guidance, and many invaluable insights. I would also like to thank my cohort and mentors from the Harvard Horizons program for reflecting so thoughtfully on my work. Among my graduate student colleagues, I must thank especially Meg Shields- Formato and Jenna Tonn. Both are dear friends and each of them read and thoughtfully engaged many pieces and versions of the material presented here. I have also, since the first day, truly looked up to Chris Phillips and Alma Steingart - I feel tremendously grateful to have them as like-minded colleagues, friends, and collaborators in the his- tory of mathematics. Vive la révolution! Finally, I thank Myrna Perez Sheldon and Lisa Crystal who are among my best friends and closest colleagues and without whom vi Iwouldhavebeenquitelostatmanyjunctures. IamgratefultothefacultyandgraduatestudentsattheInstitutefortheHis- tory and Philosophy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deduction Systems Based on Resolution, We Limit the Following Considerations to Transition Systems Based on Analytic Calculi
    Author’s Address Norbert Eisinger European Computer–Industry Research Centre, ECRC Arabellastr. 17 D-8000 M¨unchen 81 F. R. Germany [email protected] and Hans J¨urgen Ohlbach Max–Planck–Institut f¨ur Informatik Im Stadtwald D-6600 Saarbr¨ucken 11 F. R. Germany [email protected] Publication Notes This report appears as chapter 4 in Dov Gabbay (ed.): ‘Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume I: Logical Foundations’. It will be published by Oxford University Press, 1992. Fragments of the material already appeared in chapter two of Bl¨asis & B¨urckert: Deduction Systems in Artificial Intelligence, Ellis Horwood Series in Artificial Intelligence, 1989. A draft version has been published as SEKI Report SR-90-12. The report is also published as an internal technical report of ECRC, Munich. Acknowledgements The writing of the chapters for the handbook has been a highly coordinated effort of all the people involved. We want to express our gratitude for their many helpful contributions, which unfortunately are impossible to list exhaustively. Special thanks for reading earlier drafts and giving us detailed feedback, go to our second reader, Bob Kowalski, and to Wolfgang Bibel, Elmar Eder, Melvin Fitting, Donald W. Loveland, David Plaisted, and J¨org Siekmann. Work on this chapter started when both of us were members of the Markgraf Karl group at the Universit¨at Kaiserslautern, Germany. With our former colleagues there we had countless fruitful discus- sions, which, again, cannot be credited in detail. During that time this research was supported by the “Sonderforschungsbereich 314, K¨unstliche Intelligenz” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
    [Show full text]
  • J JNIVERSITY of MINNESOTA J 1 I
    , ; THE j JNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA j 1 i eap OJtd (/OWJt :Da11 eoJtVOCatiOJt 1962 NORTHROP MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 24 AT ELEVEN-THIRTY O'CLOCK THE BOARD OF REGENTS Dr. 0. Meredith \Vilson, President Mr. Laurence R. Lunden, Secretary Mr. Clinton T. Johnson, Treasurer Mr. Sterling B. Garrison, Assistant Secretary The Honorable Charles W. Mayo, M.D., Rochester First Vice President and Chairman The Honorable Marjorie J. Howard (Mrs. C. Edward), Excelsior Second Vice President The Honorable Daniel C. Gainey, Owatonna The Honorable Richard L. Griggs, Duluth The Honorable Bjarne E. Grottum, Jackson The Honorable Robert E. Hess, \Vhitc Bear Lake The Honorable Freel J. Hughes, St. Cloud The Honorable A. I. Johnson, Beman The Honorable Lester A. Malkcrson, Minneapolis The Honorable A. J. Olson, Renville The Honorable Otto A. Silha, Minneapolis The Honorable Herman F. Skyberg, Fisher SMOKING AND USE OF CAMERAS--It is requested, by action of the Board of Regents, that in Northrop Memorial Auditorium smoking be confined to the outer lobby on the main floor, to the gallery lobbies, and to the lounge rooms. The use of cameras in the auditorium by members of the audience is prohibited. rltis ls Vuur Uuivcrsitv CHARTERED in February, 1851, by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota this year celebrated its one hundred and eleventh birthday. In the coming year, it will join with Land-Grant colleges and state universities throughout the nation in observing the centennial of the Land-Grant Act which created educational opportunities for all citizens and which embodied the concept that the welfare of the nation is dependent on the advancement of learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Working on ENIAC: the Lost Labors of the Information Age
    Working on ENIAC: The Lost Labors of the Information Age Thomas Haigh www.tomandmaria.com/tom University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee & Mark Priestley www.MarkPriestley.net This Research Is Sponsored By • Mrs L.D. Rope’s Second Charitable Trust • Mrs L.D. Rope’s Third Charitable Trust Thanks for contributions by my coauthors Mark Priestley & Crispin Rope. And to assistance from others including Ann Graf, Peter Sachs Collopy, and Stephanie Dick. www.EniacInAction.com CONVENTIONAL HISTORY OF COMPUTING www.EniacInAction.com The Battle for “Firsts” www.EniacInAction.com Example: Alan Turing • A lone genius, according to The Imitation Game – “I don’t have time to explain myself as I go along, and I’m afraid these men will only slow me down” • Hand building “Christopher” – In reality hundreds of “bombes” manufactured www.EniacInAction.com Isaacson’s “The Innovators” • Many admirable features – Stress on teamwork – Lively writing – References to scholarly history – Goes back beyond 1970s – Stresses role of liberal arts in tech innovation • But going to disagree with some basic assumptions – Like the subtitle! www.EniacInAction.com Amazon • Isaacson has 7 of the top 10 in “Computer Industry History” – 4 Jobs – 3 Innovators www.EniacInAction.com Groundbreaking for “Pennovation Center” Oct, 2014 “Six women Ph.D. students were tasked with programming the machine, but when the computer was unveiled to the public on Valentine’s Day of 1946, Isaacson said, the women programmers were not invited to the black tie event after the announcement.” www.EniacInAction.com Teams of Superheroes www.EniacInAction.com ENIAC as one of the “Great Machines” www.EniacInAction.com ENIAC Life Story • 1943: Proposed and approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutation COS 326 Speaker: Andrew Appel Princeton University
    Mutation COS 326 Speaker: Andrew Appel Princeton University slides copyright 2020 David Walker and Andrew Appel permission granted to reuse these slides for non-commercial educational purposes C structures are mutable, ML structures are immutable C program OCaml program let fst(x:int,y:int) = x struct foo {int x; int y} *p; let p: int*int = ... in int a,b,u; let a = fst p in a = p->x; let u = f p in u = f(p); let b = fst p in b = p->x; xxx (* does a==b? Yes! *) /* does a==b? maybe */ 2 Reasoning about Mutable State is Hard mutable set immutable set insert i s1; let s1 = insert i s0 in f x; f x; member i s1 member i s1 Is member i s1 == true? … – When s1 is mutable, one must look at f to determine if it modifies s1. – Worse, one must often solve the aliasing problem. – Worse, in a concurrent setting, one must look at every other function that any other thread may be executing to see if it modifies s1. 3 Thus far… We have considered the (almost) purely functional subset of OCaml. – We’ve had a few side effects: printing & raising exceptions. Two reasons for this emphasis: – Reasoning about functional code is easier. • Both formal reasoning – equationally, using the substitution model – and informal reasoning • Data structures are persistent. – They don’t change – we build new ones and let the garbage collector reclaim the unused old ones. • Hence, any invariant you prove true stays true. – e.g., 3 is a member of set S.
    [Show full text]
  • Herman Heine Goldstine
    Herman Heine Goldstine Born September 13, 1913, Chicago, Ill.; Army representative to the ENIAC Project, who later worked with John von Neumann on the logical design of the JAS computer which became the prototype for many early computers-ILLIAC, JOHNNIAC, MANIAC author of The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, one of the earliest textbooks on the history of computing. Education: BS, mathematics, University of Chicago, 1933; MS, mathematics, University of Chicago, 1934; PhD, mathematics, University of Chicago, 1936. Professional Experience: University of Chicago: research assistant, 1936-1937, instructor, 1937-1939; assistant professor, University of Michigan, 1939-1941; US Army, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, Md., 1941-1946; Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, 1946-1957; IBM: director, Mathematics Sciences Department, 1958-1965, IBM fellow, 1969. Honors and Awards: IEEE Computer Society Pioneer Award, 1980; National Medal of Science, 1985; member, Information Processing Hall of Fame, Infornart, Dallas, Texas, 1985. Herman H. Goldstine began his scientific career as a mathematician and had a life-long interest in the interaction of mathematical ideas and technology. He received his PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1936 and was an assistant professor at the University of Michigan when he entered the Army in 1941. After participating in the development of the first electronic computer (ENIAC), he left the Army in 1945, and from 1946 to 1957 he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), where he collaborated with John von Neumann in a series of scientific papers on subjects related to their work on the Institute computer. In 1958 he joined IBM Corporation as a member of the research planning staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Manydsl One Host for All Language Needs
    ManyDSL One Host for All Language Needs Piotr Danilewski March 2017 A dissertation submitted towards the degree (Dr.-Ing.) of the Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science of Saarland University. Saarbrücken Dean Prof. Dr. Frank-Olaf Schreyer Date of Colloquium June 6, 2017 Examination Board: Chairman Prof. Dr. Sebastian Hack Reviewers Prof. Dr.-Ing. Philipp Slusallek Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Reinhard Scientific Asistant Dr. Tim Dahmen Piotr Danilewski, [email protected] Saarbrücken, June 6, 2017 Statement I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own original work except where otherwise indicated. All data or concepts drawn directly or indirectly from other sources have been correctly acknowledged. This dissertation has not been submitted in its present or similar form to any other academic institution either in Germany or abroad for the award of any degree. Saarbrücken, June 6, 2017 (Piotr Danilewski) Declaration of Consent Herewith I agree that my thesis will be made available through the library of the Computer Science Department. Saarbrücken, June 6, 2017 (Piotr Danilewski) Zusammenfassung Die Sprachen prägen die Denkweise. Das ist die Tatsache für die gesprochenen Sprachen aber auch für die Programmiersprachen. Da die Computer immer wichtiger in jedem Aspekt des menschlichen Lebens sind, steigt der Bedarf um entsprechend neue Konzepte in den Programmiersprachen auszudrücken. Jedoch, damit unsere Denkweise sich weiterentwicklen könnte, müssen sich auch die Programmiersprachen weiterentwickeln. Aber welche Hilfsmittel gibt es um die Programmiersprachen zu schaffen und aufzurüsten? Wie kann man Entwickler ermutigen damit sie eigene Sprachen definieren, die dem Bereich in dem sie arbeiten am besten passen? Heutzutage gibt es zwei Methoden.
    [Show full text]
  • The Method of Variable Splitting
    The Method of Variable Splitting Roger Antonsen Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Date of submission: June 30, 2008 Date of public defense: October 3, 2008 Supervisors Prof. Dr. Arild Waaler, University of Oslo Prof. Dr. Reiner H¨ahnle, Chalmers University of Technology Adjudication committee Prof. Dr. Matthias Baaz, Vienna University of Technology Prof. emer. Dr. Wolfgang Bibel, Darmstadt University of Technology Dr. Martin Giese, University of Oslo Copyright © 2008 Roger Antonsen til mine foreldre, Karin og Ingvald Table of Contents Acknowledgments vii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Influential Ideas in Automated Reasoning2 1.2 Perspectives on Variable Splitting4 1.3 A Short History of Variable Splitting7 1.4 Delimitations and Applicability 10 1.5 Scientific Contribution 10 1.6 A Few Words of Introduction 11 1.7 Notational Conventions and Basics 12 1.8 The Contents of the Thesis 14 Chapter 2 A Tour of Rules and Inferences 15 2.1 Ground Sequent Calculus 16 2.2 Free-variable Sequent Calculus 17 2.3 Another Type of Redundancy 19 2.4 Variable-Sharing Calculi and Variable Splitting 20 Chapter 3 Preliminaries 23 3.1 Indexing 23 3.2 Indices and Indexed Formulas 24 3.3 The -relation 28 3.4 The Basic Variable-Sharing Calculus 28 3.5 Unifiers and Provability 30 3.6 Permutations 31 3.7 Conformity and Proof Invariance 35 3.8 Semantics 37 3.9 Soundness and Completeness 40 Chapter 4 Variable Splitting 41 4.1 Introductory Examples 41 4.2 Branch Names
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT on Science and Atheism: Whether Atheistic Belief Is
    ABSTRACT On Science and Atheism: Whether Atheistic Belief is Scientifically Motivated Charles L. Jester Director: Gerald Cleaver, Ph.D. The intent of this paper is to explore the motivation behind the rejection of theistic religious faiths by modern atheist scientists, and whether it is justified to claim that this rejection is scientifically motivated. First, a brief background of the development of the contemporary schism between faith and science is given, noting in particular changes in belief amongst the scientific community. Next, an exposition on the motivations for scientists’ convictions concerning God is laid out, followed by an address to the question of whether atheistic scientists reject all properties of God, or only certain of them. Based on analyses of personal statements, statistical data on beliefs, and developments in twentieth-century physics and mathematics, it is concluded that modern scientists who reject theism are not overwhelmingly motivated by science, and that they in fact do not reject all ideas of God. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS: _____________________________________________________ Dr. Gerald B. Cleaver, Department of Physics APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: _____________________________________________________ Dr. Andrew Wisely, Director DATE: ___________________________ ON SCIENCE AND ATHEISM: WHETHER ATHEISTIC BELIEF IS SCIENTIFICALLY MOTIVATED A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Charles L. Jester Waco, Texas
    [Show full text]
  • Dec. 21St Ladies’ [May 00]
    recruited and trained some of the six ENIAC ‘Refrigerator Dec. 21st Ladies’ [May 00]. Lawrence (Larry) In 1945, she wrote the “Manual for the ENIAC”; the first Gilman Roberts George Barnard technical description of the machine, detailed right down to Born: Dec. 21, 1937; Grant the resistor level. Connecticut Died: Dec 30, 2018 Born: Dec. 21, 1849; In 1946, Goldstine, Jean Bartik Gardiner, Maine [Dec 27] and Dick Clippinger, Roberts is often called one of the Died: Aug. 16, 1917 implemented Clippinger’s stored “Fathers of the ARPANET,” [Oct 29] a title he earned by being its Grant is called the "Father of the program modifications to the principal architect, and directing American Gear Cutting ENIAC, with John von Neumann the team that built it. Other Industry,” because of how his [Dec 28] acting as a consultant ARPANET fathers include Bob work on building mechanical on the instruction set. Kahn [Dec 23], Vint Cerf [June calculating machines affected 23], and Jon Postel [Aug 6]. that industry. Roberts first became interested While a student at Harvard, he Douglas Taylor in timesharing networks after became interested in Charles reading J.C.R. Licklider’s [March Babbage’s [Dec 26] and Per Ross 11] memos on the “Intergalactic Georg Scheutz’s [Sept 23] Born: Dec. 21, 1929; Computer Network” [May 1] , differential engines, and China (his US parents were and after meeting him at a designed one himself. He missionaries) conference in Virginia in Nov. published his work in the Died: Jan. 31, 2007 1964. Aug.1871 issue of the American Journal of Science and Arts, and Ross developed the APT In Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • AI Thinks Like a Corporation—And That's Worrying
    Topics Current edition More Subscribe Log in or sign up Search Open Future Manage subscription Open Voices AI thinks like a corporation—and that’s worrying Arti!cial intelligence was born of organisational decision-making and state power; it needs human ethics, says Jonnie Penn of the University of Cambridge Open Future Nov 26th 2018 | by BY JONNIE PENN Arti!cial intelligence is everywhere but it is considered in a wholly ahistorical way. To understand the impact AI will have on our lives, it is vital to appreciate the context in which the !eld was established. After all, statistics and state control have evolved hand in hand for hundreds of years. Consider computing. Its origins have been traced not only to analytic philosophy, pure mathematics and Alan Turing, but perhaps surprisingly, to the history of public administration. In “The Government Machine: A Revolutionary History of the Computer” from 2003, Jon Agar of University College London charts the development of the British civil service as it ballooned from 16,000 employees in 1797 to 460,000 by 1999. He noticed an uncanny similarity between the functionality of a human bureaucracy and that of the digital electronic computer. (He confessed that he could not tell whether this observation was trivial or profound.) Get our daily newsletter Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks. Email address Sign up now Both systems processed large quantities of information using a hierarchy of pre-set but adaptable rules. Yet one predated the other. This suggested a telling link between the organisation of human social structures and the digital tools designed to serve them.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Machines Think? the Controversy That Led to the Turing Test, 1946-1950
    Can machines think? The controversy that led to the Turing test, 1946-1950 Bernardo Gonçalves1 Abstract Turing’s much debated test has turned 70 and is still fairly controversial. His 1950 paper is seen as a complex and multi-layered text and key questions remain largely unanswered. Why did Turing choose learning from experience as best approach to achieve machine intelligence? Why did he spend several years working with chess-playing as a task to illustrate and test for machine intelligence only to trade it off for conversational question-answering later in 1950? Why did Turing refer to gender imitation in a test for machine intelligence? In this article I shall address these questions directly by unveiling social, historical and epistemological roots of the so-called Turing test. I will draw attention to a historical fact that has been scarcely observed in the secondary literature so far, namely, that Turing's 1950 test came out of a controversy over the cognitive capabilities of digital computers, most notably with physicist and computer pioneer Douglas Hartree, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, and neurosurgeon Geoffrey Jefferson. Seen from its historical context, Turing’s 1950 paper can be understood as essentially a reply to a series of challenges posed to him by these thinkers against his view that machines can think. Keywords: Alan Turing, Can machines think?, The imitation game, The Turing test, Mind-machine controversy, History of artificial intelligence. Robin Gandy (1919-1995) was one of Turing’s best friends and his only doctorate student. He received Turing’s mathematical books and papers when Turing died in 1954, and took over from Max Newman in 1963 the task of editing the papers for publication.1 Regarding Turing’s purpose in writing his 1950 paper and sending it for publication, Gandy offered a testimony previously brought forth by Jack Copeland which has not yet been commented about:2 It was intended not so much as a penetrating contribution to philosophy but as propaganda.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiasmic Rhetoric: Alan Turing Between Bodies and Words Patricia Fancher Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 8-2014 Chiasmic Rhetoric: Alan Turing Between Bodies and Words Patricia Fancher Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Part of the Rhetoric and Composition Commons Recommended Citation Fancher, Patricia, "Chiasmic Rhetoric: Alan Turing Between Bodies and Words" (2014). All Dissertations. 1285. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1285 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHIASMIC RHETORIC: ALAN TURING BETWEEN BODIES AND WORDS A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate of Philosophy Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design by Patricia Fancher August 2014 Accepted by: Dr. Steven B. Katz, Committee Chair Dr. Diane Perpich Dr. Cynthia Haynes Dr. D. Travers Scott DISSERTATION ABSTRACT This dissertation analyzes the life and writing of inventor and scientist Alan Turing in order to define and theorize chiasmic relations between bodies and texts. Chiasmic rhetoric, as I develop throughout the dissertation, is the dynamic processes between materials and discourses that interact to construct powerful rhetorical effect, shape bodies, and also compose new knowledges. Throughout the dissertation, I develop chiasmic rhetoric as intersecting bodies and discourse, dynamic and productive, and potentially destabilizing. Turing is an unusual figure for research on bodily rhetoric and embodied knowledge. He is often associated with disembodied knowledge and as his inventions are said to move intelligence towards greater abstraction and away from human bodies.
    [Show full text]