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.

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

We agree. Now, back to my original post: Can we build a computer that may "seem" to be philosophical? That is; it could fool a board of judges. Please note the difference between seems to be, and is - such as in the Turing Test.

Searching for truth is not the same as defining truth. How can one search for something they can't define?

I believe a good philosophical computer would first need to be a good psychologist. It is important to know the probability of someone accepting your statement because it may seem true to them. Example: If I make a statement: "Columbus discovered America". Many people may believe that to be true and would accept the statement. But, it's not true at all. Close, but not true. It is more important in philosophy to have someone believe your statement, rather than have scientific proof.

There can be no philosophy if the definition of philosophy is not itself an issue for philosophy.
I believe we could say the same about "truth". How well can anyone define truth in philosophy - yet we still search for it.

Good points, but it seems you are looking at a "scientific method" of examining the discussion. Using your discussion: In philosophy a heavy object will fall faster than a light object. In science (from experiments) we understand both objects fall at the same rate. A philosophical computer needs only to understand the probability of what you might believe when given information. One might even argue we don't know anything, but we believe we do.

A lazy philosopher can still be a philosopher!

Good point!

Good points! Ambiguity is part of philosophy. That's what seperates it from science. A pjilosophical computer would realize that and make use of it in debate.

A point of view may at first sound like a contradiction with another point of view. That in itself is part of philosophy until alignments can be made to show agreement. That's where discussion can help.

A play on words?

I don't see a philosophical computer as a hoax. Not sure I know what you mean otherwise.

Thanks for the post. Nope, not what I was looking for but still a good article. I believe computers can mimic philosophers good enough to pass a test made specifically to test them - but it will not be easy to program the cpmputer, or test it, unless we can first understand more of how to define philosophy.

That I find is a very good question! Can any question be answered by just yes, or no. Maybe! Computers seem to do that very well.

I also appologize if I seem to be critical of your coments. Being critical is not my intent. I was pointing out the difficulty of communicating ideas whether we are general, or specific. Your question: "Truly new and original idea"? seems to be a good question. I find it philosophically thought provoking. Depending on context, the answer could yes, or no.

I appreciate your efforts. We communicate with each other in both generalities, and in specifics, but often we are unaware of which one each of us are using when compared to the other person. That part is usually left out. I understand why you would want to keep the conversation general, but sometimes someone may ask a question looking for more information,or detail, - increasing the specificity. How you could "lock-in" a specific level of information in a back-a-forth conversation could be debated in itself.

After reading the posts on this thread, I believe we first need to agree on some specifics of what is meant by "Truly new and original ideas".

A good point. Our language dosn't always cover details. We speak in generalities and believe the other person will understand the details. Your examples cover that well.

Interesting perspective! "People storing information". Is information stored in people, or in the peoples brain? I would say it comes down to an individual's perspective, but perspective is already individualized just by definition.

It is difficult, probably impossible, for humans to "come up with" a truly unique idea as you describe. Our minds build ideas on old foundations. We can't think of new things unless we have already learned the newer foundations. Generally, new foundations are learned by accident. Example: emergent properties. Look at the history of our science. New discoveries are primarily made by accident. To prepare our minds for learning new things - we must first realize we don't "know" anything. Be a Schultz - "I know nothing". Knowing something (knowledge) is only a habit of using certain memories. Information comes to our brain via electrochemical impulses. Memories are formed in the brain by repeating these impulses to a specific area, or cell, within the brain. The brain is inherently lazy so it naturally chooses established memories over unknown information that might accidently get to the brain. This information is based on Neuroscience.

Thanks for your response Jack. In the space available for comments it is difficult to give enough clues to allow someone not already familiar with levels to really grasp the scope. However, you seem to have shown an interest. It is a start.Thanks! Levels is not really associated with "levels of consciousness". It is more closely associated with reductionism, but also recognizes things becoming larger - not just smaller. Levels also recognizes the hierarchy relationship of large and small objects, and concepts. An example could be "the forrest and the trees". Levels can also be used to understand the "Sorites paradox", and other similar thought problems.

It seems to me, in order to have an original idea we must first create new foundations. Generally, we start building our foundations for thinking very early in life and those foundation-thoughts are primarily sensory inputs. We can't remember our very first sensory thoughts so we believe our reality is based on our perception. However, as adults, we have the ability to question our sensory input. "What we perceive may not be the real truth". It is difficult to imagine a new, original, idea based on our lifelong habits of perception. At this point I would like to introduce a new thought - not based on our old perction, but creating new thought experiments based on "emergent properties". For lack of a better name, I call these thought-experiments "Levels". Levels are the hiararchy of property bundles - not just our old sensory inputs. If this concept seems interesting to you, please respond.

Instead of Quantum Mechanics, let's use the term Emergent Properties. Quantum Mechanics defines the existence of elementary particles by defining these small objects as fields. Emergent Properties simply states we don't understand the properties of the underlying cause and just give the underlying cause a placeholder name. Until some future date when we can define the underlying cause at the level of the so-called elementary particles we are stuck with inventing terms to define these emergent properties. We are actually looking for properties that are, as yet, undetectable.