[benlivengood]

I'm all ears if someone has a counterexample to the Church-Turing thesis. Humans definitely don't hypercompute so it seems reasonable that the physical processes in our brains are subject to computability arguments.

That said, we still can't simulate nematode brains accurately enough to reproduce their behavior so there is a lot of research to go before we get to that "actual knowledge".

[chx]

Why would we need one?

The Church Turing thesis is about computation. While the human brain is capable of computing, it is fundamentally not a computing device -- that's what the article I linked is about. You can't throw in all the paintings before 1872 into some algorithm that results in Impression, soleil levant. Or repeat the same but with 1937 and Guernica. The genes of the respective artists, the expression of those genes created their brain and then the sum of all their experiences changed it over their entire lifetime leading to these masterpieces.

[eru]

The human brain runs on physics. And as far as we know, physics is computable.

(Even more: If you have a quantum computer, all known physics is efficiently computable.)

I'm not quite sure what your sentence about some obscure pieces of visual media is supposed to say?

If you give the same prompt to ChatGPT twice, you typically don't get the same answer either. That doesn't mean ChatGPT ain't computable.

[sebzim4500]

>(Even more: If you have a quantum computer, all known physics is efficiently computable.)

This isn't known to be true. Simplifications of the standard model are known to be efficiently computable on a quantum computer, but the full model isn't.

Granted, I doubt this matters for simulating systems like the brain.