We agree. However, one can be in search of a "vague" concept/idea - and not necessarily have a clear definition. — Don Wade

I agree. You and I could not even talk about truth (let alone define it) without having at least a vague and average understanding of truth.

Yes, that would define the problem. The same could be true of the Turing Test. It seems "statistics and probability" would be a requirement for the memory of the "bot". All the bot needs to do is "convence the judges" - so to speak - similar to the IBM Watson in the game-show Jeopardy.

A lazy philosopher can still be a philosopher! — Don Wade

There are other things implied in a "lazy philosopher". C'mon man, we are discussing philosophically here.
Saying, we can bring everything to agreement, for example, violates a lot of philosophical principles.

Is a vague philosopher a lazy philosopher?

Is a vague philosopher a lazy philosopher? — Don Wade

Absolutely not. But are we talking "vague" now?

Vaugueness and Lazyness are both properties that can support philosopher.

Vaugueness and Lazyness are both properties that can support philosopher. — Don Wade

I disagree vehemently! Vagueness is a normal feature of philosophical discussion, laziness is not.

Within the realm of philosophical discussion, we can avail ourselves of various treatments for vagueness -- vagueness frequently appears in epistemology and metaphysics. But, laziness is a human condition that existed prior to philosophy and exists outside of it.

Something about the name, "Metaphysics Research Lab," strikes me at the same time as hilarious and terrifying.

Something about the name, "Metaphysics Research Lab," strikes me at the same time as hilarious and terrifying. — tim wood

we can avail ourselves of various treatments for vagueness — Caldwell

There are vaccines being developed in the MRL to protect against this very affliction. :cool:

There are vaccines being developed in the MRL to protect against this very affliction. :cool: — jgill

Surely some of us don't need that vaccine. haha! :blush:

At it's core, I think an ability to self evaluate it's own source code or state and build inferences. Fooling is easy. I would say we all use the fooling tactic to some degree in our lives and that's part of philosopher. But if you are suggesting that philosophical discourse is fooling ones self, I disagree for sure.

Also, the Turing test has been beaten already by AI. And not by AI that is ground breaking. Just with fooling as you call it. But for me all this proves, was that the Turing Test is not very useful.

What we should have learned from it was to ask better questions on what makes human intelligence

the Turing test has been beaten already by AI. — Paul S

The Turing test is routinely "beaten" by plain old chatbots. The problem isn't that the chatbots are intelligent, but that humans are easily fooled. If you say, "Hello" to a program and it outputs, "Hi there, how are you today?" most people are willing to believe they're talking to their neighbor, with whom they never have any deeper conversation than that yet credit their neighbor with sentience.