Comment by coldtea

>People always say this kind of thing. Human minds are not Turing machines or able to be simulated by Turing machines

That's just a claim. Why so? Who said that's the case?

>When you go about your day doing your tasks, do you require terajoules of energy?

That's the definition of irrelevant. ENIAC needed 150 kW to do about 5,000 additions per second. A modern high-end GPU uses about 450 W to do around 80 trillion floating-point operations per second. That’s roughly 16 billion times the operation rate at about 1/333 the power, or around 5 trillion times better energy efficiency per operation.

Given such increase being possible, one can expect a future computer being able to run our mental tasks level of calculation, with similar or better efficiency than us.

Furthermore, "turing machine" is an abstraction. Modern CPUs/GPUs aren't turing machines either, in a pragmatic sense, they have a totally different architecture. And our brains have yet another architecture (more efficient at the kind of calculations they need).

What's important is computational expressiveness, and nothing you wrote proves that the brains architecture can't me modelled algorithmically and run in an equally efficient machine.

Even equally efficient is a red herring. If it's 1/10000 less efficient would it matter for whether the brain can be modelled or not? No, it would just speak to the effectiveness of our architecture.