All I'm asking for is a formal language that is decidable by humans but not by a Turing Machine. Is that really asking so much?
Let's go back to what I said:
(Y)ou are assuming what needs to be proven: that what the brain does is a calculation.
...or to put it in other words, first you need to show that what the human brain does IS
decide a formal language. There's no reason to even be interested in the question if what the human brain does cannot be so represented. And really the bigger problem at the moment is that nobody is anywhere near such a description.
You're joking, right? You couldn't talk or write if you couldn't decide a formal language, heck, you couldn't BREATH if you couldn't decide a formal language. EVERY thought and EVERY action is 'deciding a formal language', I'm really starting to wonder if you even comprehend the mathematical implications.
The computational class of your brain is MATHEMATICALLY DEFINED by the problems it can decide. So, I really don't care about artificially inflated ideas you have about yourself. I know for a fact that EVERY THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE question can be defined within the arithmetical hierarchy. And the set of those questions you can actually answer defines your computational class. That's how the real world works, end of story.
Please, let me know where you got your education, so I can avoid the place lest my IQ drop by 40 points.
Claiming that you can produce a model is uninteresting if you cannot produce a model. You can say that you can make a Turing-equivalent model of human mentality; but really, you can't, at least not yet.
I haven't once said I can create a model, in fact, if you'd actually READ my posts (is that a new concept, reading something you haven't written, personally?) you would see that I EXPLICITLY said I cannot create a model. But that's irrelevant since I can define the languages the human brain can decide and, therefore, I can define a complexity class...and I need no concept or understanding of how the human brain works to do that since I can define a complexity class with 100% mathematical certainty based on NOTHING more than what languages can be decided.
Honestly, at this point, I have assume you're just screwing with me, no one can actually be this stupid. So would you please stop already so we can have a serious discussion?
Your funny, especially that part about that You know for a fact....and that part about your 100% certainty...swatting at gnats and swallowing camels can become a full time occupation and no doubt requires a formal language wherin those who enjoy swatting ganats and swallowing camels are able to communicate with each other about which part of the camel should enter into the mouth first. Its great theory, but to swallow a camel you have to take it in whole, otherwise its just as the 80's Wendy's commercial said, parts are parts. Yea, we might call a chicken sandwich a chicken sadwich, but it aint a chicken. And putting the parts back together doesn't make it a chicken, though it might appear very chicken like.
I readily admit that I am well below your 40% loss of IQ but I don"t feel it is necessary to know how the process within my brain enables me to swat at gnats. Neither do I need to know whether the gnat wanted to be swatted at...and just because I missed the gnat with my swat, doesn't make me less intelligent than the gnat.