You could make the argument that two things that we don’t understand are the same thing because we’re equally ignorant of both in the same way that you could make the argument that Jimmy Hoffa and Genghis Khan are probably buried in the same place, since we have equal knowledge of their locations.
Clearly there is a difference between a small person hidden within playing chess and a fully mechanical chess automaton, but as the observer we might not be able to tell the difference. The observer's perception of the facts doesn't change the actual facts, and the implications of those facts.
The Mechanical Turk, however, was not a simulation of human consciousness, reasoning, chess-playing or any other human ability: it was the real thing, somewhat artfully dressed-up as to appear otherwise.
Is it meaningful to say that Alphago Zero does not play Go, it just simulates something that does?
