>>7035559Yeah it's all purely theoretical, "optimal" turing machine doesn't make any sense, it either is one or it isn't. This isn't a question of feasability or how much computing time is needed or whatever, it's purely a question of possibility. Given a finite amount of time, even if that time is millions of years, which one of the two can solve a problem the other can't. Or can they both solve exactly the same problems (regardless of which one is faster).
So you'd have to do one of two things as far as I can tell, altho there may be much more to it beyond my current knowledge. Either you have to be able to make some kind of abstract model of the brain, prove it is a complete model, then prove it can do as much or more than a turing machine. Or alternatively, somehow be able to prove (theoretically, not experimentally) you can simulate a human brain on a turing machine, which would prove the machine is equal or better
