THE TURING MACHINE AND WHAT COMPUTERS
CAN AND CANNOT DO

A lecture by
Valdemar W. Setzer
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of São Paulo, Brazil
www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer – this version: 11/18/21
See the abstract and the ppt presentation of this lecture

1. Nov. 14, 2021, remote lecture for the MysTech organization, and interested people. Info: Andrew Linnell jandrewtogetherlinnell att gmail dot com. Questions: [1] What were the most important things that you have learned? [2] What are the biggest remaining doubts? [3] Comments. [4] What is your degree of satisfaction with this lecture? (1 - very unsatisfied, 5 - very satisfied: 5 - 66.7%; 4 - 8.3%; 3 - 25%). [5] Did you learn new things? (YR yes, relevant: 75%, YN yes, not relevant: 0%; NO 25%). My comments are preceeded by COMM.

1. [1] A better understanding of how TMs and computers actually process symbols. [2] That the form of consciousness in or behind computers is not understood. [3] It was implied that TMs/computers have no sensation nor higher consciousness. Yet even we cannot share our actual sensations with others. The best we can do is point to an object in the material world (an orange) and indicate that as the sensation-bringer (“sweet like an orange”). If our sensations are met through the ‘symbols’ of the material/maya world (mouth, orange) then might not another being meet sensation in the TM/computer? And express a slighty higher bit of consciousness in the response? [4] 3. [5] NO. COMM.: In fact, consciousness is not scientifically understood, independently of computer models. As for sensations, I said that they are absolutely individual and subjective; computers are not individual, they are universal machines, and are objective. A computer may receive a chemical analysis of the orange, and conclude and display that it is "sweet". But it does not feel anything, it does not feel the sweteness. The computer's reaction cannot be called "consciousness". All this pressuposes the common understanding of "feeling" and "consciousness". If they are defined as some formal calculation, or symbol manipulation, then what a computer does can be called "feeling" and "consciousness" but this has nothing to do with our corresponding experiences. As for item [5], I am surprised that this person didn't learn anything new. S/he declared that how machines process symbols! And how about my theory of how "something" non-physical may act upon the physical world? (By choosing one state transition among different physically non-deterministic transitions.) I thought my theory sas original. Please send me some information about it if you have found it somewhere.
2. (This assessment was received by e-mail. The distribuition among the first 3 items and the answers [4] and [5] are abitrary. [1] TM's finite number of discrete states. [2] Why not see the leaf as TM? Everything is leaf. Everything is TM--and through this simplicity manifoldness becomes possible, ie., the states? Why not see an archetypal digital phenomenon? See the leaf (TM) in conjunction with outer manifestations -- (seed leaf, sepal, corolla; calyx, corolla, stamens, pistil; sprouting, blooming, bearing fruit; germination, growth, transformation of organs, nourishment, propagation -- as processes of metamorphosis --- as different forms -- as the states? To see the sensible-supersensible process in it's idea (TM) - as the same in all computer functions --states -- yet taking different forms? [3] I was struck by the comment by Rogerio Santos that conveyed: "TM is the archetype of all digital machines." It resonated with Goethe's archetypal phenomenon (Urphaenomen) or archetypal plant. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: TMs are discrete machines, each one using an infinite tape. I don't thing the "real" world is discrete. Note that quantum mechanics detects quanta in experiments that change "reality". We don't experience that the matter is quantified, unless for separate objects. We experience our thoughts and feelings as continuous phenomena. A pencil is a leaf? This is not our common understanding of them. At each "instant" a leaf is in a certain state, encompassing the states of all its parts. A change from one such state to the next takes some time; state changes in TMs don't take any time, because they are not physical. The TM is an idea, and as such is supersensible! The TM is the archetype of all computers because from it one can derive the latter -- in the same way as Goethe said that from his archetypical plant he coud derive all plants. The big difference is that computers are physically implemented mathematical devices, and plants are living beings.
3. [1] that the subject matter hasn't changed since I first encountered it 50 years ago. [2] none. [3] It was a great privilege to relive material that launched my career in information science, at the end of my career. thanks!. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: Did you learn my philosophical considerations 50 years ago? Certainly the TM has not changed - but maybe my way of presenting it was original. BTW, did you learn at that time that the TM uses just one type of instruction? I have not found such a consideration elsewhere.
4. [1] The illustration of the Turing Machine and the idea that computers cannot do math. [2] How to meet this rapidly developing technology of extended reality and the forces driving it in a way that allows for humanity to continue to evolve toward undetermined freedom. [3] Imagine a world where AI controlled virtual reality has become so pervasive that nearly the entirely of humanity is unaware of the physical world in the way in which the vast majority of people in the world today are unaware of the spiritual world. Physical reality in this world would be a myth. In a similar way to what you might hear about an ancient Yogi meditating and experiencing spiritual reality that was real, in fact more real even than physical reality. You could imagine that some people might claim to have experienced physical reality and that it was more real than virtual reality. I find this thought somewhat terrifying, but at the same time I think as a thought experiment it could help some very intelligent and well intentioned people who cannot find room for the spiritual world in their scientific world view to bridge the gap. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: Be careful, the only thing computers do is just math (as symbol manipulation), nothing else. In terms of math, as I said it is a restricted one, discrete and finite. I think people should meet the rapid technological development by knowing what it is and its impact on nature and humankind, and developing personal self-control. For a good use of any technology, I think one has to have: 1. Knowledge; 2. Discernment; 3. Self-knowledge; 4. Self-control. I don't think humankind will become unaware of the physical world. The body of every person is physical! The ancient Yogi you refer to was not capable of observing the physical world with the precision we do today, so for him his spiritual observations were more real. And we normally lost the capacity for spiritual observation. (But people don't realize that they are doing this constantly, when they assign a concept to any observed object.) Asimov has an interesting story in the far future where somebody discovers how to do additions and multiplications by hand…
5. [1] How a Turing machine works. [2] Is it possible to keep children isolated from computers in today's world?. [3] I've know about Turing and his contribution to defeating the Nazis and how little he was given recognition, but was not aware as to why. There are a few eurorack modules called turing machine and I was curious about the similarities. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: Yes, it is possible to isolate children from computers, video games and the internet - at least at home and in the school. It is almost impossible to do it with adolescents, and that is a tragedy. But these are the topics of another two-session lecture, "Electronic media and education, at home and in the school, and Waldorf Education: problems and solutions." In it I present about 20 problems and 20 solutions. Thanks for mentioning Eurorack, I didn't know it.
6. [1-2] {Empty}. [3] I am sorry to say the subject matter was way too technical for me to follow so I left early. But I am glad if others could follow. The presentation was very well organized. [4] 3. [5] NO. COMM.: Maybe if you would continue you would have profited from the philosophical considerations. Now try to download the ppt presentation and examine it carefully. It was intended for people with no formal or mathematical knowledge. I used the TM because it is easily understandable; if I would have used computers, it would be difficult to describe precisely how they work in terms of the circuitry. It would be possible to introduce what a basic machine language is (in presence lectures, I do it through a theater play that the participants perform, simulating how a computer logically works), but it would take too much time.
7. [1] What a Turing machine is/. [2] {Empty}. [3] Looking forward to next lecture. [4] 3. [5] YR.
8. [1] As a former system analyst working for IBM and teaching computer science and programming at a college in Copenhagen, much of the thinking behind what you covered was familiar. However I was surprised to hear about the archetypal computer, the Turing machine, and delighted of its simplicity with one type of instruction. It was fascinating to learn that there was nothing a computer can do that the Turing machine couldn't. If there was an algorithm to solve, the Turing machine could do it with one type of instruction! WOW. You explained it so very well and very clearly. You were very articulated. [2] I do not have any questions at this point, rather subjects for conversation as, 'What are the implications of digital control for our free spiritual, social and economic life.' I look forward to attending your presentation in January. Thank you very much, [3] The presentation and links are very organized. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: Any external control in relation to each individual goes against free spiritual life. Digital control would be the worst control, without any compassion and understanding. Economic life needs planning, and there some digital control may be used, but always as an indication, and not taking decisions. Computers don't make decisions, they make logical choices.
9. [1] Throughout your talk I appreciated how you made a distinction to not humanize computers in describing different functions, ex. wrong to say a computer "reads" rather say "recognizes". I would love to hear more examples of this! I will go over the lecture as some of the technical explanations of the TM went over my non-mathematical, non-technical head! Yet, I could follow your clear descriptions!. [2] Not a doubt but would like more explanation regarding "essence" as spoken of in Philosophy of Freedom, as you related to "fundamental essence of any computer". [3] I look forward to reading (or hearing your lectures!) regarding the importance of waiting till age 17 for use of computers. I look forward to other times we can hear you share! Thank you, it was a wonderful lecture. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: In fact, "recognition" involves some data processing, which is not done by the head. Maybe I should have used "input/output" for the head functions. Other examples of undue computing anthropomorphic expressions: "memory", "artificial intelligence", "machine learning", "computers process information" (should be "process data"; data are absorbed by humans as information when they are understood. See my paper "Data, information, knowledge and competency")
   
10. [1] detailed explanation of the Turing Machine, and how a virtual computer works. [2] . [3] I work with computers and have studied the basics of computer programming. If I had heard this lecture 30 years ago I could write programs in Python or C with ease. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: "Virtual computer" or "virtual machine" is an expression used for programs that simulate a computer. Probably a better expression for the Turing Machine would be "abstract computer". I was surprised to read your comment that the knowledge of the TM would have helped you to write programs in computer languages with ease. The programming tricks used in TMs, as the ones I illustrated when I described how to solve the exercises, are in general different from tricks used in programming languages. Speaking about Python, give a look at my "cheat sheet" for it, unfortunately in Portuguese, but you may use the examples, and an automatic translator for the texts – google translator does a fairly good job to and from English.
11. [1] Not sure. To get a bit of a historical context was good (but I haven't really 'learned it' yet). [2] I wonder whether - if through some form of indeterminism of the quantum computer - intelligence of a different kind might occupy or use the machine. Of course, that might not be as 'incorporated' as the human being's intelligence and being. And it does not give the machine a real life. But it might be still a horrible experience. [3] I thought that the technical side was possibly a bit long - although I can understand that it would need even more time to give a real understanding of it (I learned some of it at school when programming our first computer (in about 1971). I would have preferred to go into the consequences of people thinking this way. What might be the good effect of a very conscientious planning of these machine processes, and what do we do to bring that into a healthy relationship to the real tasks of the human being...? Learning new things was not my intention; I never saw the computer as intelligent - and programming as a very tedious exercise for phlegmatics who can stay forever on the same problem.... (you are surely not one). And how relevant it is, I cannot judge. [4] 4. [5] NO. COMM.: Quantum computers just increase the speed with which some algorithms are processed. They must be deterministic as far as the results are concerned. I have some doubts in terms of quantum computers – they need to work in cryogenic temperatures to avoid noise, they are too sensible to noise. Furthermore, their results, e.g. many possible passwords, have to be used linearly, one at a time, and not in parallel. As for the way people think, there is a great danger that people get addicted to the algorithmic way of thinking. Any use of a computer forces algorithmic thinking. The use of computers should be compensated with artistic activities and a strong meditative life. See my paper "Art as an antidote to 'computer thinking' " As for your answering NO to the question about having learned somethink new, please see my comments to the 6th assessment.
    
12. [1] I found the information on the workings of the Turing machine very beneficial to understand. I love his slide on what humans can do, that computers cannot; and vice versa. [2] Not doubts as such, but I believe our understanding of computing and our corresponding need to address our understanding of the planet and its crystalline crust will lead to some interesting higher level developments. (like the return of Atlantian tech) I believe we will come to understand silicon better. In the 'short term' era in maybe about 10 yrs time, (when we have seen more of today's 'world' collapse) for our betterment, over and after, I m sure we ll be held accountable for misuse, and subject to the consequences. In other words, Different to today s AI perception and imaginings, although they are paving a path towards something new. [3] Was worthwhile, thankyou. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: I think one can only use electronic media properly if one has a knowledge of the spiritual aspects of humans and nature in general, as well enough knowledge how technology works and its impacts. For instance, in the late 60's there were no scientific studies concerning the ill effects of TV, but my spiritual knowledge led me to decide not to have a TV at home - the best gift I gave my children. BTW, Steiner characterized materialism as a sickness. With a materialist view of the world, the use of electronic media and technology in general is turning nature and humankind into sick entities.