That's an odd sort of list that you've compiled, almost as if you are trying to score points rather than "further" science.To wit: you keep bringing up the semantics of the Turing Machine, yet you haven't yet thought about the big picture.
Why is a Turing Machine important, for instance? What is the Turing Test?
Rather than deal with all the other petty nits that you tried to re-hash, I'll deal with this one and then wait to see if your further posts reveal an actual interest in science or else a mere desire to find ways to stymie the querying into fields and areas that threaten your own preconceived notions.
With that precursor out of the way, a Turing Machine is a device that processes commands and data. This is important, and I'll go back to this point later.
The Turing Test is a single way to conclusively prove that a machine is processing information/commands rather than merely expressing or copying them.
But here's something that they didn't tell you in grad school: the Turing Test doesn't have to be the only way to tell if something is processing rather than merely copying.
Ahhhh, now there's a point worth repeating. The Turing Test doesn't have to be the only way to tell if something is processing rather than merely copying.
OK, I've said it at least twice so you may have some small chance of remembering that point in your future posts (although it is oh so much easier to "score" points by conveniently forgetting such obnoxious and pesky facts!).
Well, what's this have to do with biological cellular systems, you ask (bright kid, for asking such a question)?
And of course, the answer is that we want to know if cellular systems merely copy data/commands, or if they process commands and data.
Hmmmm.... OK, this would be a good place for a Turing Test, right?
Absolutely! In fact, the only real problem with the Turing Test is that it is so easily abused (semanticly) in debates.
OK, so if not a Turing Test, then how do we know if the cellular system is processing data and commands rather than merely copying them like an old Xerox photocopier?
Well, we can try an experiment (call it a Gedanken Experiment if you like, although this experiment does not have to be only in your mind).
We can insert a genetic programming command into a gene. Then we can see if 1. the new command is copied along with the rest of the gene, and 2. that the organism in our experiment now does something different.
To make this experiment easy, let's insert a genetic marker/command into the very beginning of the gene that grows a certain type of hair in a certain place/location. This particular genetic command will be the computer equivilent of the programming command EXIT SUB. Thus, a system that processes commands/data will now have this gene turned off.
As the cells in our experiment replicate DNA, we notice that they do indeed copy every bit of DNA, even that of the gene that we modified (including our inserted command).
Fair enough. Copying / replicating DNA isn't being debated, after all.
Now all that you have to do is to answer the question: will the organism in our experiment behave differently, have different output/appearance, or change in any way due to our new command?
If you answer "Yes", then we don't have to debate the semantics of the Turing Test in our future posts to each other on this thread, as you will have concluded for yourself (by experiment) that complete cellular systems do indeed process commands and data.
If you answer "No", then the fun begins.
But you will need to have the courage of your convictions to at least answer directly Yes or No (a difficult thing in this age of compromised intellectual ethics, I admit, but I have faith in you).
The ball is now in your court.