Speech may be uttered in order to effect changes in the world, changes inextricably connected with the meaning of the words uttered.
语言可以改变世界，这种改变取决于语言的意义。
The word 'meaning' led Polanyi into extra-material, religious connotations, but there is nothing at all supernatural about the mundane fact that human brains are connected with the world by devices other than a teleprinter.
"意义"这个词，被波兰尼引伸到超自然的宗教观，但图灵认为，大脑与外界的联系，本质上跟电传打字机没有什么区别，这事没有什么超自然可言。
A 'controlling machine' was to have physical effects 'as small as we please', but speech, to be audible or legible, has to have a definite physical effect, tied into the structure of the outside world.
图灵的模型，是一种"物理作用尽量小"的机器，但是对话这件事，无论是通过声音还是通过读写，都是与物理世界紧密相关的。
The Turing model held that this was an irrelevant fact, to be discarded in the selecting of certain details, but the argument for this irrelevance was left weakly supported.
图灵的模型，通过"选择一些特定的细节"，回避了这种相关性，但他却没有给出有力的论点，来证明这种做法的合理性。
If, as Alan Turing himself suggested, knowledge and intelligence in human beings derive from interaction with the world, then that knowledge must be stored in human brains in some way that depends upon the nature of that interaction.
图灵自己也说过，人类的知识和智能，源自与外部世界的交互，既然如此，那么人类大脑储存这些知识的方式，就必然也与外部世界的结构有关。
The structure of the brain must connect the words it stores, with the occasions for using those words, and with the fists and tears, blushes and fright associated with them, or for which they substitute.
大脑的结构必须能够储存这些语言，并且储存使用这些语言的方法，比如将拳头与眼泪联系起来，将脸红与害怕联系起来。
Could the words be stored for 'intelligent' use, within a discrete state machine model of the brain, unless that model were also equipped with the brain's sensory and motor and chemical peripheries?
图灵的问题在于，他要用一个离散状态机，储存语言并以此表现智能，那么没有感觉器官能行吗？没有运动器官能行吗？没有有机的神经突触能行吗？
Is there intelligence without life? Is there mind without communication? Is there language without living? Is there thought without experience?
没有生命能有智能吗？没有交互能有心灵吗？没有意识能有语言吗？没有经验能有思维吗？
These were the questions posed by Alan Turing's argument—questions close to those that worried Wittgenstein.
这些问题，曾经也令维特根斯坦感到困惑。
Is language a game, or must it have a connection with real life? For chess thinking, for mathematical thinking, for technical thinking and any kind of purely symbolic problem-solving, there were arguments of great force behind Alan's view.
语言究竟是一种符号游戏，还是必须与现实生活有联系？对于象棋、数学和任何纯符号问题来说，图灵的理由很充分很有力，
But in extending it to the domain of all human communication the questions he raised were not properly faced, let alone resolved.
但如果扩展到所有的人类交互，那么这其中的问题，在这篇论文中连提都没提，更别说解决了。
Indeed, they had been faced more openly in the 1948 report, in choosing activities for a 'disembodied' brain. He had narrowed them down to those not requiring 'senses or locomotion'.
实际上，在图灵1948年的报告中，这种"脱离身体的大脑"的活动，就已经被限制到了"无需感觉和运动"的范围。