>It's not "guilty until proved innocent" i.e. it's not >necessarily up to Penrose to "prove" humans do >non-computable things, so much as up >to those who hold the reverse, that what humans do is >always computable.
Nonsense! It was *you* who made the affirmative proclamation that humans perform these feats and they were "easy" to find examples thereof, now when I call you on it you slide into this position.
>Qualified people" means nothing here really.
Since I'm arguing with one who easily confuses solving chess problems with "non-computable" feats of derring-do, I'll have to concede that point.
But I'll reiterate that granting "there are things that humans do that are a mystery and a wonder" does not lead to therefore "they are in principle non-algorithmic". That's right - if you are claiming the latter, you have to do more than talk a lot about the former.
>I'm not willing to concede that those without evidence >(Penrose has plenty -- lots that humans do, computers >cannot and have not
I'd say the situation regarding these claimed powers to transcend Turing computability in human symbolic reasoning is much more akin to claims of flying saucers and ESP - show 'em if you got 'em. Factor me some really big numbers in an instant.