雙語暢銷書《艾倫圖靈傳》第7章:運轉起來(59)
But in describing the Turing machines ten years before, he had also justified his formalisation of the idea of 'mechanical' with a complementary argument, that of the 'instruction note'.
This put the emphasis not on the internal workings of the brain, but upon the explicit instructions that a human worker could follow blindly.
他的重點，不在於大腦內部如何運作，而是在於工人可以機械地照着指令來執行。In 1936 such 'instruction notes' had entered his experience through the rules of Sherborne School, other social conventions, and of course in the mathematical formulae that one could apply 'without thinking'.
1936年，舍爾伯尼的校規中有很多類似的指令，讓他印象深刻，還有一些來自社會習俗，當然還有拿來就用的數學公式。
But in 1945 a great deal of water had flowed under the bridge, and the 'instruction notes' that had been somewhat fanciful in 1936, just as were the theoretical logical machines, had become exceedingly concrete and practical.
但是在1945年，邏輯與實體之間架起了橋樑，那些1936年的理論邏輯機器中的虛擬的"指令便條"，開始變得具體而可實現了。The cornucopian abundance was one of messages 'based on a machine and broken on a machine', and these machines were Turing machines, in which the logical transformation of symbols was what mattered, not physical power.
一個明顯的例子，就是那些"成也機器、敗也機器"的情報，而那些機器跟圖靈機是一樣的，他們依賴於符號的邏輯變換，而不依賴於物理上的力量。And in designing such machines, and in working out processes that could be given to people acting like machines—the 'slaves'—they had effectively been writing elaborate 'instruction notes'.
當人們設計這些機器時，以及設計它們執行的程序時，就是在設計詳細的"指令便條"。This was a different, but not incompatible, approach to the idea of 'brain'.
這是個不同的，但也不矛盾的，關於大腦的觀點。It was the interplay between the two approaches that perhaps fascinated Alan most—just as at Bletchley there had been a constant play between human intelligence, and the use of machines or 'slave' methods.
最讓圖靈感興趣的，是這兩種觀點的融合。正如在布萊切利的時候，人類智能與機器行爲一直在配合使用。His 'weight of evidence' theory had shown how to transfer certain kinds of human recognition, judgment and decision into an 'instruction note' form.
他的證據權重理論，顯示瞭如何將人腦的識別、判斷和決策，轉換成"指令便條"的形式。His chess-playing methods did the same thing—as did the games on the Colossi—and posed the question as to where a line could be drawn between the 'intelligent' and the 'mechanical'.
他的下棋方法也是如此，還有巨人機的程序，都提出了這樣一個問題：智能與機械的界線在哪裏？His view, expressed in terms of the imitation principle, was that there was no such line, and neither did he ever draw a sharp distinction between the 'states of mind' approach and the 'instruction note' approach to the problem of reconciling the appearances of freedom and of determinism.
艾倫·圖靈認爲，這條界線不存在。在調和自由意識和決定論時，他也從未在"思維狀態"和"指令便條"之間劃出明確的界限。
