perhaps we do not have Kings (or people with natural authority) because they are atypical to the mass in some way and therefore must either lie to the point of forgetting their real natural way of behaving, suppress it, or drop out of society in some fashion, perhaps not merely asocial but anti-social.

You should watch Gintama.

The words are not synonyms, but as mentioned above, the idea is that a cognition could emerge from a computing substrate.

As for the Turing Test, it’s not to test whether a computer can feign answers. It’s an admission that we can’t have some kind of ‘interior’ test of cognition. Why assume the worst (that a computer can’t be intelligent/sentient/conscious), instead use external criteria?

Whether a conversation with a human is a good external criterion is questionable. If an AI outfoxed us in many ways, but refused to have a conversation, for how long would we consider it stupid?

I thought the Turing test was mainly about testing the computer’s ability to feign answers to questions for which computer algorithms provide no obvious model – something more like the Voight-Kampff polygraph-type test in Blade Runner.