[namaria]

There's no magical thinking involved in discussing the limits of computability. That is a well researched area that was involved in the invention of digital computers.

Penrose's argument is interesting and I am inclined to agree with it. I might very well be wrong, but I don't think the accusation of magical thinking is warranted.

[akoboldfrying]

I'm arguing that, if a fertilised egg is really capable of fundamentally more than computers will ever be, then the only possible explanation is that the egg posseses extraphysical properties not possessed by any computer. (And I'm strongly hinting that this "explanation" should be considered laughable in this day and age.)

[namaria]

> the only possible explanation is that the egg posseses extraphysical properties

This is wrong. Computability is by no means the same as physicality. That's the whole point and you're just ignoring it to make some strawman accusation of ridiculousness.

[akoboldfrying]

1. What property of a fertilised egg enables it to compute uncomputable things?

2. If that property is a physical property, what prevents simulation of it?

[namaria]

> 1. What property of a fertilised egg enables it to compute uncomputable things?

The question is malformed. How can something compute an uncomputable thing?

> 2. If that property is a physical property, what prevents simulation of it?

Is P=NP?

[akoboldfrying]

>How can something compute an uncomputable thing?

If humans cannot compute uncomputable things either, on what grounds do you claim we are capable of something that computers are incapable of?

[namaria]

Haven't you understood that my argument is precisely that intelligence comprises more than performing computations?

I know you think this is a gotcha moment so I will just sing off on this note. You think physical = computable. I think physical > computable. I understand your argument and disagree with it but you can't seem to understand mine.