On Norbert Wiener's Relationship with Bertrand Russell | Hacker News Reader

On Norbert Wiener's Relationship with Bertrand Russell

cantorsparadise.substack.com

83 pointsjorgenveisdal44 comments

If you are interested in or have done some philosophy then you'll find this article fascinating and informative. It covers aspects of the strained relationship between Bertrand Russell and Norbert Wiener that I can't ever remember reading about in other short biographies of the pre-WWI Cambridge philosophers and mathematicians. Similarly, the somewhat awkward and prickly relationship been Russell and Wittgenstein is mentioned.

The article conveys a sense of the intellectual milieu in and around Cambridge in 1913. That must have been a remarkable time to have been at Cambridge and majored in philosophy and or mathematics with the likes of Russell, Wiener, Wittgenstein, G.E. Moore, G.H. Hardy J.E. Littlewood, A.N. Whitehead all there at the same time—even Srinivasa Ramanujan was there in 1913!

I'd have loved to have been around this intellectual tour de force when I was studying those subjects. Ah, well, I'll just have to be content with the fact that a number of my textbooks were written by four of them not to mention other notables who they'd influenced.

> I'd have loved to have been around this intellectual tour de force when I was studying those subjects

You get to do something they could only dream of back then - fast forward the wheels of history 100 years past two world wars to the age of science fiction where machines can think and speak, planet earth grows food for 8 billion people, and the moon is littered with human footprints from a generation ago.

Those philosophers would love nothing more than to spend an hour with you listening to your descriptions and thoughts about the world you live in.

Specifically Trinity College, Cambridge. From Newton to Byron. And down to the Cambridge Spies and Bloomsbury Group.

Although they still do the Math Tripos, the Greats program in Ancient Greek and Latin seems to have befallen modern times and is sadly diminished. One wonders what we are losing ;)

I think that what you call the "Greats" programme would today be called the "Classics", which still seems to be a Tripos option [1]. It requires knowledge of Latin but an extra preliminary year is available to teach it to those without the background. It also includes "intensive ancient Greek programme".

[1] https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/classics

Paul Halmos also famously did not get along well with Norbert Wiener, apparently they would argue a lot.

Norbert Weiner is a standout of modern computing/mathematics because he took a principled stand on the consequences of his research, and decided to move fields because he didn't want his work to directly relate to military applications.

There are very few people of his standing in science at that time, and I believe since, with the fortitude to resist temptation to take the high paying gig despite the moral implications. Joseph Rotblat comes to mind.

And let's not forget that Bertrand Russell was also a very principled man - he was imprisoned for his pacifism during World War I and for his involvement in anti-nuclear campaigning in 1961 (aged 89!).

Lol there are people that do this every day. Either they take a principled stand against tech and turn down lucrative research roles in industry, or, for example, they turn down funding from the military; I switched PhD programs last year because I did not want to work on object detection for the army. In doing so I forewent a very nice fellowship. I don't say this because I want a pat on the back but just to demonstrate that it's very common.

... of his standing.

Part of the issue might be that those who choose the more moral course don't get the large government grants and military funding, which means that they don't get well known, not because they aren't just as talented but because of lack of funds. So scientists of standing may self select for the kind of person who will do anything for money and fame. If society had more funding for principled causes, or celebrated those with them, we might see more scientists with standing (i.e. well-known) who also stuck to their principles.

i'm not sure why you think it's harder for someone "of his standing" to turn down opportunities. the marginal utility for him is much lower than for grad students that have to choose between RAships and TAships or fresh PhDs that have to choose between risky tenure track grinds and lucrative industry roles.

I don't think its hard. I just think they don't. I think it's really sad how few senior scientists with standing do this. They seem to lack the fortitude to do something, which isn't that hard when it comes down to it.

I don't blame fresh starts who go for the lucrative roles, they need the money. Once you're established, finding a hill to stand on and choosing to stand on it seems to get .. less likely?

You made the call, good for you. I admire that. I wish more people with established status did, and said so.

Am I missing something? is there a lot of news out there about CompSci and AI profs sticking it to the man (faang) about things? I don't see it, and thats what I'm responding to here. Norbert Weiner was apex in his field. He looked at what was going to happen with it, and decided to stop feeding the beast. Where's the equivalent behavour from his peer-set in todays world?

>CompSci and AI profs sticking it to the man (faang) about things

there are very frequently articles/gossip on quittings/firings of famous researchers. timnit gebru is a recent example.

>Norbert Weiner was apex in his field.

i wouldn't be so quick to lionize him - he was also not very kind to walter pitts and possibly contributed to his suicide

http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r...

> he was also not very kind to walter pitts and possibly contributed to his suicide

Wiener's wife told him a lie about Pitts. She invented an indecency involving Wiender's daugher. Both Wiener and Pitts never found out the truth about who ended their relationship.

And how do we know that it was a lie? Did she admit it later? If she did, what were the reasons to believe her recantation over her accusation? Did the daughter say it was a lie later in life?

All I know from the article is that Wiener, a very smart person, thought the accusation was credible enough at the time to completely cut off people who were very important to him personally and intellectually. I also know that those people accused were very heavy drinkers.

It's safer to say we don't know anything about the veracity of the claim unless the reference offered some sort of material alibi.

I think it's noble from a personal perspective but realistically all developments made in CV are eventually going to be used in military applications anyway.

Was it a moral stance or the fact he had a great detestation of human suffering, as alluded to in the article. Someone of that brilliance would quite easily be able to draw the link between their work and future suffering.

It's possible this is a moral stance but I'm not so sure, it some what feels like a pain reaction. I must admit I've had the same thought about my own actions, I hate to see people suffer too the point where it has a pain like sensation, If I've been the cause of it I try to rectified quickly, is this morality?

Well, we often talk about morality in terms of our emotional and physical response - e.g. revulsion ('disgusting behaviour'), fear ('recoiling in horror') and pain ('pangs of conscience'), etc. It's also pretty difficult to determine whether Wiener's detestation of suffering was the cause of his moral stance or vice versa.

I would argue that whatever the associated reaction/cause, the outcome is a moral stance as it influenced his decisions based on the consequences his actions might have on other people. OTOH, if Wiener felt bad about other people's suffering but it didn't affect his choices, it wouldn't be a moral stance.

There is an exploration of this train of thought in Frank Herbert's novel "Whipping Star", where a criminal condemned to a Clockwork-Orange-style conditioning to abhor pain and suffering nevertheless finds a way to commit murder by exploiting a truly alien being with no human-understandable concept of suffering.

Still, I think in non sci-fi scenarios, an abhorrence for suffering and moral behavior are very much linked, if not perfectly equal.

He thought and wrote about such matters with some depth, though he wasn't that worldly wise. I still liked his books like "The Human Use Of Human Beings" very much. He also wrote a novel about a patent troll, called "The Tempter", in 1959!

I think you need to define what you consider a “moral stance” to be, before one can answer whether or not it was one.

Do you have a source for this? I have been reading a fair amount on information theory, cybernetics, and Wiener lately, and I haven’t seen this mentioned, at least not yet.

In fact, the sources I’ve read said he was quite enthusiastic about helping out for both WWI and WWII.

For example:

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the-absent-minded-father-of-...

This was postwar. Like many scientists, He viewed the second world war as a "just" war, but the cold-war? less so.

Gotcha. Thanks for the time period reference, as I haven't gotten to sources that cover that yet.

He did take that stance later in life but he started his work in cybernetics in a project intended to improve anti-aircraft targeting during WWII.

I found this article another gem from the numerous gems concerning Russell. I feel I must point out, as a fully paid up 'fan' of Russell's, and because people here have mentioned 'principles', he misstepped on race, perhaps (kindly) an indication of the sheer engrained blanket racism still prevalent in the world throughout the 20th century.

For those evermore curious...

https://studsterkel.wfmt.com/programs/interview-bertrand-rus...

Can you point out a specific example of racism in that interview? I haven't looked through it entirely, but searching for some common terms that I expect someone to use when showing some racism ("race", "racism", "black", "intelligence", "asian", "brown") I couldn't find anything (he does mention Black men once, but only in a hypothetical reaction he expects the general public to have, one that he criticizes).

The interview is relatively long though, and searching for those words is not a sufficient indication, so I am curious.

No contentious race or eugenic topics are brought up in that interview. It was just for the curious...

I have looked, and I have yet to find serious recorded mentions of Russell on these topics, only transcripts, letters, etc..

You misspoke then?

It would be useful to clarify as you've essentially just accused him of racism and its not clear that you acknowledge that accusation was incorrect or at least unevidenced here.

Not at all. Anyone with a passing interest would be aware. As I stated, as the gist of the early posts mentioned Russell being a man of principles, it is always worth reminding ourselves no one is perfect.

NB I now see the wording of my post could be read as 'here is a post concerning race'. But I should have separated the first line from the rest of the post; the 'gem' I was referring to was the original post.

Dude, you basically called Russell a racist and when you got called out on it, you didn't retract.

Please have the decency to retract or provide some kind of source for your claims. I don't recall anything I've read of Russell showing any element of racism or sympathy towards it.

Russell's eugenics notes are very well known.

Read my posts again, what you are accusing me of is utterly missing - I'm insulted, however I will not be making any threats to those ignorant of history.

"Read my posts again, what you are accusing me of is utterly missing"

he misstepped on race, perhaps (kindly) an indication of the sheer engrained blanket racism still prevalent

My stating Russell flirted with eugenics need not be apologised for. Are you saying I am wrong, and that Russell did not show an interest?

Given the current toxic 'quick to judge' forum behaviour on the internet, it is almost certain a latter-day Russell would not have been allowed to continue his work and thoughts in public, as your mischaracterisation of my post shows.

Are you saying I am wrong, and that Russell did not show an interest?

I am saying you essentially accused him of racism without any evidence, then quickly obfuscated when called on it, followed by a prolonged attempt to divert the "toxicity" you initiated to a more general internet malaise of which you are apparently the victim now.

It's really poor form tbh.

1922 Lecture - Birth Control News - ...the one real remedy is birth control, that is getting the people of the world to limit themselves to those numbers which they can keep upon their own soil... I do not see how we can hope permanently to be strong enough to keep the coloured races out; sooner or later they are bound to overflow...

1929 Book - Marriage and Morals - ...there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another... It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

If you want obfuscation, look to Russell. In 1964, in a letter Russell was asked, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?"

Russell - I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.

Ambiguous?

I have not obfuscated or 'basically' called Russell a racist, I said he entertained racist ideas in an otherwise admiral lifetime. Let's agree on the distinction between a racist action, and racism en masse. When Russell aligned himself with eugenics, this is now rightly seen as a racist action, but it does not make him wholesale racist. I did not call him racist, it is not what I said, and it is not what I think. As if this needs pointing out. Bertrand Russell was not significantly more racist for the time, less so than Lincoln for example, but he entertained a racist concept, that of eugenics. And the eugenics movement was run and lauded by particularly odious racists.

As I previously wrote, such a position is understandable given context in history. Eugenics was a widely known and popular concept throughout Europe in the early part of the 20th century, particularly gaining traction after The Great War, and especially amongst what are commonly described as intellectuals.

I am indebted to Bertrand Russell, he saved my life. Afterwards I made a conscious move to spend a significant amount of contiguous time reading his essays and letters. They contained a myriad of delights that still bring me great pleasure and hope, but I also learned something about how great people can be wrong, why, what they do about it.

Now this is an excellent and informative post as to your position, but it really shouldn't have taken so much to draw out your meaning and justification.

>an excellent and informative post

Thank you

>shouldn't have taken so much to draw out your meaning and justification

No, I explained for those that needed it explaining. Some posts were clearly unaware of Russell's eugenic past, even though they falsely accused me of unfounded remarks. It's not advisable to attack people on subjects one is unfamiliar with, it tends to make the attacker look ignorant.

Unrelated but this is Norbert’s account of meeting Albert Einstein: http://web.archive.org/web/20150426074612/https://libraries....

Renewed war in Europe, he predicted, would pass the "leadership of civilization...to America and ultimately to Asia."

Said Mr. Einstein in 1925. He was right.

So it's about what Russell, Wiener and Wittgenstein though of each other. Hard to get excited by the details of their personal relationships when the subject that brought them together is fascinating, but almost ignored.

Would have been interested in the specific insights that affected the work of each other (beyond Logicism and Platonic Realism).

Great article.

Interesting that Wiener's genius (and his suicidal depression) may have been partly result of his fathers educational experiment.

Surprising there is no mention of Frank Ramsey, who was around at the same time, and was the only one considered equal to Wittgenstein.

And no mention of the unreciprocated romantic interest, which to me is the most interesting facet of their relationship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com