Non-computability of human intelligence

TL;DR

This paper argues that human intelligence cannot be fully modeled by Turing machines, showing that some brain processes and physical phenomena are inherently non-computable, challenging the limits of computational modeling of the mind.

Contribution

It introduces a novel argument demonstrating the non-computability of certain human thought processes and physical brain functions without relying on G"odel's incompleteness theorem.

Findings

Some human thought processes are non-Turing computable.

Certain physical brain processes are inherently non-computable.

The argument avoids meta-logical issues present in previous debates.

Abstract

We revisit the question (most famously) initiated by Turing: can human intelligence be completely modeled by a Turing machine? We show that the answer is \emph{no}, assuming a certain weak soundness hypothesis. More specifically we show that at least some meaningful thought processes of the brain cannot be Turing computable. In particular some physical processes are not Turing computable, which is not entirely expected. There are some similarities of our argument with the well known Lucas-Penrose argument, but we work purely on the level of Turing machines, and do not use G\"odel's incompleteness theorem or any direct analogue. Instead we construct directly and use a weak analogue of a G\"odel statement for a certain system which involves our human, this allows us to side-step some (possible) meta-logical issues with their argument.