An interesting test of what appear to be general arguments against something
is whether you can use them to prove the opposite as well.
Clearly, if you want to use something non-algorithmic to solve a problem (say, if you’re a human, which for the sake of argument we will pretend are “non-algorithmic”), you have to get that non-algorithm somehow. But then we have the problem to determine the non-algorithm to find that, and so on... Obviously, at some point we have to actually find a non-algorithm to start with, so in any case at some point we need something fundamentally algorithmic to determine a solution to an problem that is solveable by a non-algorithm.
Interesting reply! The solution is to terminate the chain of determination with a non-algorithm that is fundamentally indeterminate, which quantum mechanics already hints at.
An interesting test of what appear to be general arguments against something
is whether you can use them to prove the opposite as well.
Clearly, if you want to use something non-algorithmic to solve a problem (say, if you’re a human, which for the sake of argument we will pretend are “non-algorithmic”), you have to get that non-algorithm somehow. But then we have the problem to determine the non-algorithm to find that, and so on...
Obviously, at some point we have to actually find a non-algorithm to start with, so in any case at some point we need something fundamentally algorithmic to determine a solution to an problem that is solveable by a non-algorithm.
Interesting reply! The solution is to terminate the chain of determination with a non-algorithm that is fundamentally indeterminate, which quantum mechanics already hints at.