  We revisit the question (most famously) initiated by Turing: can human
intelligence be completely modeled by a Turing machine? We show that the answer
is \emph{no}, assuming a certain weak soundness hypothesis. More specifically
we show that at least some meaningful thought processes of the brain cannot be
Turing computable. In particular some physical processes are not Turing
computable, which is not entirely expected. There are some similarities of our
argument with the well known Lucas-Penrose argument, but we work purely on the
level of Turing machines, and do not use G\"odel's incompleteness theorem or
any direct analogue. Instead we construct directly and use a weak analogue of a
G\"odel statement for a certain system which involves our human, this allows us
to side-step some (possible) meta-logical issues with their argument.
